Mason & Hamlin AA scale.

[Farrell]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
My guess would be that the hockey stick bridge of that era sounded worse =
- actually, my guess is that the transition bridge evolved before the =
hockey stick bridge. Does anyone know?=20

1891 was what, 20 or 25 years after the first overstrung bass piano? I =
would guess that there just hadn't been enough trial and error with the =
stringing scales and matching soundboard design to these scales to =
predictably produce good sounding bass/tenor break areas. And after all, =
they needed to keep the bass section of the six-foot piano the same size =
(number of notes) as the nine-foot piano, so that prevented them from =
placing 28 or 32 notes on the bass bridge.

I don't really understand the boundless reverence given to the =
developers of pianos a hundred years ago. No doubt at all that many of =
them were very intelligent, very creative, very inventive - hey, they =
basically invented the modern piano. But just like the inventions of =
electrical energy, modern medicine, space travel, etc., etc., just =
because these were fabulous inventions made by brilliant people doesn't =
mean that the basic inventions cannot be improved upon.

My understanding is that most Stradivari and Guarneri violins in =
professional use today have had significant modifications to them to =
make them more consistent with what is expected of a modern violin =
played in a modern orchestra (I'm really not sure what they do to them - =
modified neck, bridges???). Only groups that specifically target making =
music on period instruments might use one of these violins that even =
resembles an original configuration. So if it is OK to modify these =
instruments to produce what is generally considered to be a more =
pleasing sound today, why is there so much resistance to modifying a =
first-generation modern piano?

As always, if one is targeting recreating a piano from 1890 because they =
specifically wish to hear what a new piano from that era might have =
sounded like, of course, that is a very legitimate direction to go. But =
if you are trying to make the best piano you can, why blindly throw up =
your hands and say that it is not possible to improve upon the work of =
the "Original Masters"? Now before I get pummeled to death, understand =
that I don't think change for the sake of change is necessarily good. =
Have a good reason for making changes. Consult with those that know =
about these kinds of things and have the experience.

Terry Farrell
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: St=E9phane Collin=20
  To: Pianotech=20
  Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 5:55 PM
  Subject: Re: Mason & Hamlin AA scale.


  Hi Mark and all.

  I run into the same third bridge problem on my 1891 Steinway A.  It =
sounds awful, while the rest sounds great.  Pitty to hear that changing =
for bichords instead of trichords didn't help much for the sound.  I =
feel I could possibly be ready to follow Terry F to the shop of Del F =
and ask for redesinging.
  Does anyone know what the hell those splendid engineers of Steinway =
had in mind when desinging that third bridge ?

  Regards,

  St=E9phane Collin.
    ----- Original Message -----=20
    From: Mark Dierauf=20
    To: pianotech@ptg.org=20
    Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:52 PM
    Subject: RE: Mason & Hamlin AA scale.


    I did an old S&S A1 over with all bichords on the third bridge. It =
still had that "third bridge" tenor sound, but at least the top 7 =
bichords were 33% easier to tune! Plus they damped better.

    ;-)

    - Mark

    =20

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Erwinspiano@aol.com [mailto:Erwinspiano@aol.com]=20
    Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 12:01 AM
    To: pianotech@ptg.org
    Subject: Mason & Hamlin AA scale.

    =20

         To all esteemed scaleheads,

      I just received a AA for a complete rewhatevering & I'm very =
unimpressed by the bass tenor break. This one is 1919 with 2 bichords & =
7 trichords. With all of our discussions about third bridges & such I'm =
drawing the conclusion that this on is ill devised. Tonally it abysmal =
to the ear. I learned from a friend who is doing another dated 1931 that =
this vintage has all 9 transition notes in bichords. He & I have yet to =
hear it as it's not done.

      I'm considering either switching to 9 bichords with the old bridge =
but the string lengths seem dreadfully short. Does any one have the =
string tension logged for this model. My guess is it would be =
instructive.=20

      The other option is to do away with most of it and use the small =
piece that juts out toward the spine.

      Any body out there played with this model?
      My 1950s AA has one long bridge with 5 bichords. It could have =
used 6 as note27 is wiry sounding. Kind of honky& low tensionish. I'll =
know more when I run the scale.

     It's obviously a design that has been transitional.

       Any thoughts, Ideas?

       Dale=20

    =20

    Erwins Pianos Restorations=20
    4721 Parker Rd.
    Modesto, Ca 95357
    209-577-8397
    Rebuilt Steinway , Mason &Hamlin Sales
    www.Erwinspiano.com

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/53/34/f1/46/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--