---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Hi all,
>-----Original Message-----
>From:=20
><mailto:Erwinspiano@aol.com>Erwinspiano@aol.com=20
>[mailto:Erwinspiano@aol.com]
>Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 12:01 AM
>To: pianotech@ptg.org
>Subject: Mason & Hamlin AA scale.
>
> To all esteemed scaleheads,
> I just received a AA for a complete=20
>rewhatevering & I'm very unimpressed by the bass=20
>tenor break. This one is 1919 with 2 bichords &=20
>7 trichords. With all of our discussions about=20
>third bridges & such I'm drawing the conclusion=20
>that this on is ill devised. Tonally it abysmal=20
>to the ear. I learned from a friend who is doing=20
>another dated 1931 that this vintage has all 9=20
>transition notes in bichords. He & I have yet to=20
>hear it as it's not done.
> I'm considering either switching to 9 bichords=20
>with the old bridge but the string lengths seem=20
>dreadfully short. Does any one have the string=20
>tension logged for this model. My guess is it=20
>would be instructive.
> The other option is to do away with most of it=20
>and use the small piece that juts out toward the=20
>spine.
> Any body out there played with this model?
> My 1950s AA has one long bridge with 5=20
>bichords. It could have used 6 as note27 is wiry=20
>sounding. Kind of honky& low tensionish. I'll=20
>know more when I run the scale.
> It's obviously a design that has been transitional.
> Any thoughts, Ideas?
> Dale
Hi Dale,
I'd be very interested in seeing a tail-overhead=20
image of the piano in question, if you can get=20
one organised. I'm leaving for the APTTA=20
convention in 30 hours, but I'd be interested in=20
seeing it before I go. I can respond while I'm=20
away but I can't get emails.
Kristie and I have had Ron N. and Loui Nossaman=20
staying with us since last Friday. We've 'swapped=20
the odd lie' after sticking our collective heads=20
into a couple of controversial instruments on the=20
local scene. Its been an interesting few days. On=20
Thursday we're all going to Adelaide for the=20
APTTA 2004 convention. We had Roger and Maree=20
Jolly with us for the week before. Its been=20
interesting having these list heavy-weights in=20
town. Both Ron N. and Roger had a crawl through=20
our no. 5 and the Stuart concert grand at the=20
Conservatorium. Ron N. and I also had a long look=20
over the Stuart 220 last Friday. Very interesting=20
indeed. He had his Lowell down-bearing gauge with=20
him, which was most revealing. Its a wonderful=20
tool.
We're taking our No. 5 along for exhibit at the=20
Adelaide convention this coming weekend. The=20
Sydney Conservatorium administrators kindly=20
agreed to lend it to me for the week. I was=20
delighted to hear that other pianos on exhibit=20
will include B=F6sendorfer 214, Steinway Hamburg B=20
and a Yamaha S6. This provides a good opportunity=20
for direct comparisons to be drawn. Can't wait.
At 8:55 AM -0400 19/7/04, Farrell wrote:
>
>. . . 1891 was what, 20 or 25 years after the=20
>first overstrung bass piano? I would guess that=20
>there just hadn't been enough trial and error=20
>with the stringing scales and matching=20
>soundboard design to these scales to predictably=20
>produce good sounding bass/tenor break areas.=20
>And after all, they needed to keep the bass=20
>section of the six-foot piano the same size=20
>(number of notes) as the nine-foot piano, so=20
>that prevented them from placing 28 or 32 notes=20
>on the bass bridge.
>
>I don't really understand the boundless=20
>reverence given to the developers of pianos a=20
>hundred years ago.
Agreed, while respecting the thinking of the past=20
we should give scrutiny to contemporary ideas as=20
they come along.
> No doubt at all that many of them were very=20
>intelligent, very creative, very inventive -=20
>hey, they basically invented the modern piano.=20
>But just like the inventions of electrical=20
>energy, modern medicine, space travel, etc.,=20
>etc., just because these were fabulous=20
>inventions made by brilliant people doesn't mean=20
>that the basic inventions cannot be improved=20
>upon.
Indeed, there were creative people doing stuff in=20
previous times, and the average IQ probably=20
hasn't taken too much of a dip since then. We=20
might witness some real evolutionary contemporary=20
stuff, if we can release ourselves from the time=20
warp of the past century.
> My understanding is that most Stradivari and=20
>Guarneri violins in professional use today have=20
>had significant modifications to them to make=20
>them more consistent with what is expected of a=20
>modern violin played in a modern orchestra (I'm=20
>really not sure what they do to them - modified=20
>neck, bridges???). Only groups that specifically=20
>target making music on period instruments might=20
>use one of these violins that even resembles an=20
>original configuration. So if it is OK to modify=20
>these instruments to produce what is generally=20
>considered to be a more pleasing sound today,=20
>why is there so much resistance to modifying a=20
>first-generation modern piano?
Exactly, the earlier violins that are used for=20
today's concert performances are highly modified=20
instruments. So why are so many so damn precious=20
about modifying existing pianos?
> As always, if one is targeting recreating a=20
>piano from 1890 because they specifically wish=20
>to hear what a new piano from that era might=20
>have sounded like, of course, that is a very=20
>legitimate direction to go. But if you are=20
>trying to make the best piano you can, why=20
>blindly throw up your hands and say that it is=20
>not possible to improve upon the work of the=20
>"Original Masters"? Now before I get pummeled to=20
>death, understand that I don't think change for=20
>the sake of change is necessarily good. Have a=20
>good reason for making changes. Consult with=20
>those that know about these kinds of things and=20
>have the experience.
Agreed on all counts.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:collin.s@skynet.be>St=E9phane Collin
>To: <mailto:pianotech@ptg.org>Pianotech
>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=20
>1891 Steinway A. It sounds awful, while the=20
>rest sounds great. Pitty to hear that changing=20
>for bichords instead of trichords didn't help=20
>much for the sound. I feel I could possibly be=20
>ready to follow Terry F to the shop of Del F and=20
>ask for redesinging.
Yep, changing to bichords on the tenor bridge is=20
a step in the right direction, but it is only one=20
step of several which will be required to rectify=20
the perceived tonal deficiencies.
>Does anyone know what the hell those splendid=20
>engineers of Steinway had in mind when desinging=20
>that third bridge ?
Speculating from 2004, I would say they were=20
heading in the right direction, given that they=20
weren't prepared to move the break further up the=20
scale to where it should have been (the tenor=20
bridged S&S model A, for example, is a much=20
better basic design than the contemporary=20
offering). But they didn't want to move the break=20
because they wanted to retain the break and look=20
of the longer D piano. However, from my=20
perspective at least, further significant=20
modifications are necessary to get the best from=20
this scaling layout.
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/1a/35/70/d1/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC