---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment To Bill Ballard and other stayers, At 2:12 PM -0500 24/11/02, Bill Ballard wrote: >. . . If there are people still interested in this thread, may be >the better way to advance their knowledge might be to post the rear >duplex locations for a common Steinway scale, say the M. I measured >the end notes of a Steinway M in a home Friday afternoon: > >Note # SL RDL Interval SL/RDL Nearest Whole RDL >D55 11.36" 2.77" m9 4.10 2.84" >G71 5.94 1.76 P11 3.55 1.48 >G#72 4.56 1.49 P11 3.06 1.52 >88 2.02 0.98 m9 2.06 1.01 Thank you Bill. These figures are typical of Steinway's approach to the rear duplex, in which they demonstrate no real desire to build pianos to the rhetoric of their promotional literature. >. . . I was quite happy with the way the top two section of this >piano sounded. Indeed, I have no doubt that instruments can sound quite decent in spite of the rear duplexes being out of tune. After all, contrary to some claims which have been put forward on this list, the rear duplex contributes a very small improvement (from my observation at least) to the sustaining qualities of a note. If we wish to achieve sustaining qualities, there are far more significant factors such as rim rigidity, bridge pin tightness and bridge dimensions, speaking length termination shape (and its hardness and lack of hysteresis loss) and the overall structural integrity of the sound board assembly's cellular structure (floppy old collapsed sound boards mostly exhibit poor sustain, which sound more like a duck than a piano). I believe that a far more beneficial outcome, in getting the rear duplexes in tune, is to rid the extreme top end of that annoying chorus effect that some pianos exhibit when some 'assemblers' (be them manufacturers or rebuilders) set the rear duplexes just close enough that they take up energy sympathetically, but are just out of tune enough to be downright annoying (Del mentioned this a couple of days ago). And since I've almost digressed to one's technical background (manufacturer or rebuilder), a member of this list made a comment recently to suggest that Ron Nossaman might not have a factory background, and thus might be incapable of a 'proper understanding of the light' when it comes to being obsessed about the duplex. What on earth has someone's background got to do with their ability to understand and grasp concepts? What pompous nonsense! THE LATE GREAT ALFRED WEGENER The comment made reminded me again of the hounding which Alfred Wegener (a German meteorologist) received from the President of the American Philosophical Society when Wegener presented his tectonic plate theory to an international meeting of geologists in 1912, when the theory (that the continents drifted across the face of earth) was described as 'utter, damned rot'. Wegener continued to live the rest of his life with the reputation of 'that meteorologist with the absurd theory'. And while he didn't live long enough to see his theory proved (which was in 1966), many of his detractors were alive to witness it. Strangely quiet has been the criticism of Wegener since '66. However I digress, forgive me for being so incensed at the recent criticism levelled at our colleague Ron N., but I too have no factory background and indeed no formal qualifications as a piano technician. Nevertheless, much help from talented and generous people (such as the late Newton Hunt and many others) has I hope helped me to become a technician of some worth, regardless of the lack of pedigree. I was particularly annoyed at the statement made since I think most on this list would agree that Ron Nossaman is someone who (like several other 'leading lights' on this list) is prepared to think about all aspects of our discipline in an intelligent manner and in a spirit of open enquiry. What a breath of fresh air this can be, since it is the only way that our industry will progress, and hopefully escape the drudgery of looking backwards at what someone did or said 130 years ago (which is quite irrelevant when it comes to serious contemporary piano research). >At 7:21 PM -0500 11/17/02, Bill Ballard wrote: >. . . Dan, at this point there may be a dozen of us on this list who >are willing to try tuning a RDL (either by sliding duplexes or with >a tuning hammer). This may be your remaining chance of convincing >any of us. Have we ever set up pianos with properly tuned duplexes? Yes we have. Our 1977 Hamburg Steinway D (1996 rebuild) was an example (along with two other rebuilt Steinway Ds, a few Kawai's and recently our piano no. 003). Firstly, a duplex sliding tool is a complete waste of time on a piano unless it has individual tunable blocks. The modern Steinway is not duplex-tunable unless the cast block groups are substituted with individual moveable blocks. All the rebuilt piano's mentioned earlier in this paragraph were fitted with individual duplex blocks. The 1996 rebuilt D can be seen at; http://overspianos.com.au/testa.html The hamburg Steinway D rear duplex lengths for the top two string sections are intended to be: (from top C no. 88 down) 6 notes @ 100% of speaking length - unisons 11 notes @ 2/3 of speaking length - perfect fifth higher 7 notes @ 1/2 of speaking length - one octave higher 8 notes @ 1/3 of speaking length - one octave and a perfect fifth higher 3 notes @ 1/4 of speaking length - two octaves higher However, the real duplex lengths in a factory Steinway D can be anywhere up to a whole tone out of tune, such is the 'fastidious' nature of this company. If you check the image of our rebuilt D (via link above), you will notice that the hitch pin 'lines' do not follow the tuned blocks. This is most likely due to the fact that this piano does not have a Steinway string scale. The string scale incorporated is my own which I designed back around 1990 (I have four rebuilt Ds with this scale currently in service). The last three lower duplexes, which are tuned to a double octave higher, required the hitch pins to be relocated back to enable the blocks to be placed in a position which enabled correct tuning. Although this piano had quite a clean tone, it really doesn't prove much about the perceived benefits of tuning the rear duplex since there are so many other design changes included which have no relationship to a standard Steinway piano (and yes there is a transfer on the plate which lists the Overs modifications - along with the added wording 'Rebuilt in Australia' alongside the original 'Made in Germany' - to allow the S&S 'passing off' counsel to turn their attentions to matters other than pianos which we have chosen to modify with the client's consent - for those who may be interested, the damper felt on the illustrated piano is Yamaha CF) > So why don't you post the recommended tuning (or even recommended >RDLs) for the common Steinway M Who could know what the correct figures for the duplexes might be Bill, since according to many of the comments on this list, the bridges and plate would seem to be 'thrown in' wherever they might happen to land? >(and maybe throw the info for a Steinway D, considering that Sarah's >Wissner is as much a copy of the D as my Steinert is of the M). Hey Sarah, have the Wissner crew 'chosen' to use the F21 183 cm speaking length that was originally chosen by Steinway, and which has since been popularised by Fazioli, Kawai and Yamaha - we're all individuals? Who knows, if some one should dare to design a piano with an F21 speaking length other than 183 cm the deviant instrument might self destruct. Sorry for that - the Hamburg D intended duplex ratios are listed above. The individual blocks must be in the correct position to allow the rear duplex segments to be tunable (so the cast duplex block groups will be as useless as tits on a bull). Although the slider (mine is an official Fazioli tool) will allow you to position the block correctly, it still must be tuned, which is achieved by rubbing the speaking length or duplex length depending on the direction of duplex pitch adjustment required. I wrote a lengthy description of this procedure last year on this list - for those of you who are interested check the archives. Believe me this whole process is a lot of trouble for a small gain. We're still using it with our new pianos for the rear duplex only (tuned front duplexes are a complete waste of effort but that's another story) - can't say for how long (perhaps its just one of my obsessions). Apologies for the length folks if you stayed with me. So much for the design work which was planned for this evening. Ah well, it was 40 degrees C here today in Sydney. Its too hot for serious work. Regards, Ron O. -- _______________________ OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY Grand Piano Manufacturers Web: http://overspianos.com.au mailto:info@overspianos.com.au _______________________ ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/a4/4e/7d/17/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC