Hamamatsu Museum of Instruments

[Ron Nossaman]

>Stéphane's observation is correct about the rotation. He may also be right 
>about the maker trying to create noise.

I agree, for what it's worth. I think it's there for the same reason the 
tuned front duplex was invented - to disguise soundboard dysfunction in the 
killer octave.


>The manufacturer is unlikely to provide an explanation, since openness is 
>not part of their policy.

QED.


>This was quite common on Steinways of the period. They don't do it today, 
>so clearly they have changed their mind about its perceived merit.

The Pramberger Changs, however, resurrected this "feature" long after 
everyone else finally abandoned it. A giant step backward, in my opinion.


>I can't see the sense in recreating this layout when notching new bridges.

Likewise, much as I can't see the sense in incorporating this feature in 
the design in the first place.


>An interesting point about bridge dog-legs. During our many discussions 
>while Ron Nossaman was visiting last week, this topic came up. I have 
>always believed that allowing the dog-leg to extend down to the bridge 
>footprint is undesirable. Ron N has done some testing with a laser which, 
>to him, indicates that allowing the dog-leg to extend right to the panel 
>is unimportant.

At least as far as I can detect. The bridge still rocks slightly with the 
string excursion with or without the severe dogleg in the footprint at the 
bridge/soundboard interface, and I can't detect any qualitative difference 
in sound there either way, so I don't make a big deal of it one way or 
another. I consider it neither a feature, nor a fault.


>I have done no testing, having relied only on my own thinking about the 
>dynamic situation of the moving/flexing bridge. So on this matter at 
>present we disagree in theory. I don't have answers on this one since a 
>hunch is not knowledge, so I now have another question which I need to 
>clarify to my satisfaction if possible.

Likewise. When I see or hear some evidence to the effect that it's crucial 
to performance, I'll happily adopt it. Until then, disagreement on details 
of approach among designers and builders is pretty much inevitable.


>To me, there's not much to be gained by arriving at a suitable string 
>scale for a design, then allowing the scale integrity to go-with-the-dogs 
>in the name of expediency.

I quite agree. The question here being at what point the dogs take over, if 
ever on this point.


>I suppose much reasoning will depend on a company's motive for 
>manufacturing pianos in the first place. Is the primary goal the creation 
>of a first rate piano, or is it that of a marketing company who finds 
>itself compelled to manufacture pianos to satisfy the demand created by 
>the brochures and spin? This can be an interesting question.

This is a VERY interesting question, and one that will be by "virtue" of 
not being able to get real answers from manufacturers, forever speculative. 
We can only extrapolate from what we think we can see in the product, 
against what we think we know at the moment. Hopefully, what we think we 
know will expand with time and experience, making our speculative 
evaluations of what we see in existing pianos closer to what the designer 
and manufacturer intended to produce with that feature.

Ron N