Overstrung vs. parallel strung in old and new pianos

[Calin Tantareanu]

Hello!

What do you think about the two ways of constructing a piano, overstrung vs.
parallel strung?
What do you think are the advantages / problems of each?

Let me state what I've heard so far:

1. Parallel strung:

- Bass bridge is too close to rim to allow enough flexibility of the
soundboard where it is most needed (I think this is not a really valid
point, since straigth strung pianos have been made with the strings running
diagonal to allow enough room for after the end of the bass bridge, or they
have been made with floating soundboards at the end of the bass bridge).

+ Better tone, due to the bass bridge not sharing the same soundboard area
as the end of the tenor bridge, which allows a stiffer board area for the
tenor bridge and a more flexible onefor the bass.

+ Julius Bluethner metions in his book "Der Pianofortebau" that a parallel
strung piano can be made at least as good as an overstrung one.

2. Overstrung:

+ Allows more length for bass strings in a given case size (I think this is
disputable, especially in larger pianos).

+ Places the bass bridge more centrally on the soundboard, where it is more
flexible and gives better tone (but there is the trade-off with the end of
the tenor bridge which shares the same area, but needs a stiffer board).

- Makes designing a good scale harder (for the reason cited above).

These are all the differences I can think of right now, but please add your
own opinions.

I'm wondering if it would be feasible to build parallel strung grand pianos
again (somebody certainly did not long ago - see www.klavins-pianos.com - a
huge parallel strung upright).

Regards,

Calin