Bridge design (Herz Piano)

[Ron Overs]

>Hmmmm.... Here is an obvious advantage to that Herz design from 1844 then I
>guess. With the strings between the inverted soundboard and the action, you
>would probably would have less of a problem designing in adequate distance
>from both rim and belly rail.
>
>
>
>Ron Nossaman wrote:
>
>>  It's to get the "footprint", or attach point of the bridge to the
>>  soundboard panel away from the rim as far as is practically possible. Yes,
>>  it's a good idea since a bridge sitting on the rim doesn't move the
>>  soundboard all that well. It would be nice to be able to get it even
>>  further from the rim, but there is a practical limit in a grand determined
>>  by hammer clearance of the belly rail, and the upper limit of the speaking
>>  length of C-8.
>>
>  > Ron N

Indeed, but like most things Richard, there are limits as to what is 
necessary. Samuel Wolfenden experimented with upright piano designs 
which he built with the belly extending right up behind the pin block 
for the same idea. Apparently, he felt that there was virtually no 
noticeable improvement.

But I do concur with Ron N's post. Even today, after three hundred 
years of piano development, there are many manufacturers who insist 
on designing instruments with the bridge positioned directly over the 
belly rail. I wonder why there's little in the way of tone. A very 
new Australian concert grand maker has done himself proud in this 
respect.

Ron O.
-- 
_______________________

OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY
Grand Piano Manufacturers

Web: http://overspianos.com.au
mailto:info@overspianos.com.au
_______________________