At 11:54 18/09/01 -0700, Delwin D Fandrich wrote: >While I acknowledge that many pianos do have the drop-off you mention, it is >certainly not desirable. Most of these (obsolete) scales do much better with >several bi-chord wrapped unisons in the tenor section ideally placed on a >separate bridge. Interesting. On the one hand you bemoan (as I do) the characterless uniformity of modern piano tone and on the other you talk of "obsolete scales" (which I think would include all Steinway's grand scales?) and yet you talk of an ideal solution lying in a transition bridge, which was quite common in the 1870s - 80s and universally discarded in Europe before the turn of the century, roughly speaking. I'm not disagreeing with you but I'd like to know what classes as an obsolete scale in your view? For example, would Klauss Fenner's ubiquitous scales be classed as modern and therefore productive of a tone quality that is more desirable than that of the great pre-1914 pianos? As to the fall-off in tension at the extreme treble, obsolete or not, I would always aim for this; not to do so is asking for breakages in view of the doubtful quality of modern wire. To expect a No 13 wire to support 170-180 lbs. is, I think, optimistic, and I would set the length of note 88 at 4.8 - 5.0 mm. the tension to rise with the gauges to an average 165-70 lbs for the remainder of the steel scale. As to the lowering of tension at the other end of the long bridge, you seem to be saying this is a sign of obsolete scaling and that seems to mean that most modern 6' grands have obsolete scaling, since the only ways to avoid this are a) to shift notes onto the bass bridge, which would cause even worse problems or b) to provide a transition bridge as you say, which has not been considered desirable for over 100 years -- and that gives this solution a pretty good seal of obsoletion, even if it's a good solution, which I don't doubt. I've seen uprights with 5 bridges, all at different levels.. there's something that _certainly_ won't return! >....I would be very upset if the bass/tenor transition were unsatisfactory >even on a 150 cm (4' 11") scale. Especially if I get to start from scratch. Of course. I agree. It was only the maker of the 9'6" piano that thought otherwise >So far I have found no rationale for the use of tri-chord wrapped strings on >either bridge on any scale of any length. Presumably the rationale is not only to aid the transition but to produce a certain quality in that section of the piano. One of my favourite instruments of all time is the old (ca. 1899) Steinway 6' grand. The bass bridge and scaling on this piano up to note 20 are almost identical to the 6'2" model A that succeeded it, but as you know there is then a transition bridge holding two covered bichords and 7 covered trichords. The A has only two bridges with 5 covered bichords on the long bridge. There are other differences of course, not least the fine quality of the soundboard on the older one, but personally I find the 6' piano magic and the 6'2 relatively uninteresting. It's a while since I have had my hands on either, but I think this is a case where covered trichords actually served a purpose and were not a mere fudge. August Förster until quite recently, and maybe still, used several trichord break notes on their uprights but this always struck me as either a bit of show or a necessary fudge to hide bad scaling. JD
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC