Thanks to Kent Swafford for noticing that article in the G&M. I had talked to the reporter last week but wasn't aware that anything had appeared in the paper. A little clarification might be helpful. For the most part it was a reasonably accurate, if understandably (given the target audience) superficial description, but some details were a little misleading, and a few points were obviously mixed up. First, the grants we've had or will have shortly - totalling some $400K - pay for a lab *infrastructure here that will be dedicated to studying piano technology. This includes some sophisticated experimental equipment, e.g. high speed camera, actuators and sensors for control and measurement of dynamic systems (like piano actions and hammer felt), materials testing equipment, heat treating furnace (for wire experiments), and non-contact modal analysis equipment. The somewhat ponderous project name given in the article focused on the facility itself, which was what the award just announced is funding. I coined the research group here as the "Waterloo Piano Systems Group", and will focus on the piano in the broadest sense. The main objectives are to explore the relationship between piano design, its technical implementation (materials, configuration etc) and manufacturing methods, i.e. look at the piano from an engineering rather than physics-based perspective, as has typically been done previously. This work is based on modelling, backed up by extensive experimental testing and validation. The research focus is the conventional piano (modern+historical) and includes the pianist and tuner (biomechanical and perceptual aspects). The industry sponsor is involved with the research insofar as it relates to exploration of the modern piano (I can't say who it is because they would like to remain anonymous at this point). The project described in the newspaper article is actually peripheral to the main objectives of our group, although it did seem to catch the interest of the reporter. This work is an extracurricular project involving undergraduate engineering students at U Waterloo. Since I didn't write the newspaper article I had no control over the presentation, but will correct a few obvious bloopers below. The rest of my comments in this email are directed at the project described in the newspaper. Newspaper article quotes and Phil Ford's comments interspersed: >>Building a piano anyone can afford >>...Even when the very best Steinway grand can retail for half a >>million dollars, >I think this is somewhat misleading. This would be for something >like an Alma Tadema art case Steinway. I don't think a pianist >would think of this as 'the very best Steinway'. Yes of course....the figures are a little mixed up. >> and a lesser brand may suck $130,000 out of a musician's wallet, >Would a Fazioli be considered a 'lesser' brand? I think the typical cost of a Steinway D - in Canada $ remember - is about $130,000. This is my ballpark as representative of the high end concert instrument, although it's probably the bottom end of the scale if you include German pianos, and others such as Fazioli. >The buggy industry didn't collapse because of the lack of cheap high >quality buggies. The analogy I made is quite representative of the real driver in the project, but it got lost in the translation. My point is: the modern piano is the end result of 300+ years of meandering and tinkering without any fundamental change in principle. Bits got thicker and heavier and stronger and wider and longer and more braced and more rigid. But the basic design solution for a modern piano is not really any different from Cristofori's original invention, which, of course, can trace its principles considerably further via the haprsichord. Imagine the modern car had been developed this way from the horse and buggy and we continued to manufacture it as a modified horse and buggy. That's basically what's being done currently with the modern piano. Applying modern manufacturing techniques, as far as this can be done effectively, may be able to improve efficiency, but it's really nothing more than a technical and economic bandaid. I'm proposing something more radical. >>... >> The ultimate goal is to come up with a piano that costs less than >>half of today's high-end products, and "maybe even take it down a >>good deal more than that," Prof. Birkett says, so that "someone >>could buy a grand piano who wouldn't even consider it today." > >So, would that be half the cost of a half million dollar piano, or >half the cost of a $130,000 piano? I wouldn't consider a $65,000 >piano cheap. I was pressed to give a "value" (which I believe is actually conservative) although have no basis for choosing one yet, other than back-of-the-beer-mat scratchings. The objective is simply to develop something that can be manufactured as efficiently as possible, without compromising the acoustic and musical aesthetics we understand about the modern concert grand piano. It will cost what is costs at the end of the day. But it will be fun to try, and there are no economic constraints or business partners telling us what we can or cannot do, only the engineering constraints. >But, this raises an interesting question. Why do pianists think >that good pianos ought to be cheap? If you talk to other musicians, >many of them accept the fact that their instruments are expensive. >A violinist looking for a serious violin would consider a $20,000 >instrument cheap. A $100,000 instrument would be sort of middle of >road, with the most sought after instruments in the millions. It's >not unusual for an orchestral musician to purchase an instrument >that costs 2 or 3 times his annual income. They seem to look on it >as a necessary investment in the tool of their trade. Pianists, in >general, don't seem to hold the same view of things. That's true but pianos and violins are very different beasts. There's a certain snob factor involved with the violin (the old masters are not necessarily better than anything made now), and a high end violin needn't cost two arms and a leg. The ultra expensive antique instruments also have a rarity aspect that raises their value beyond their musical worth. The desires and perception of pianists really get to the nub of what I want to do. A $130K concert grand is undeniably expensive to make, and not over-priced for what goes into it. This is precisely the problem. We've all seen what you end up with when you try to make a standard concert grand more cheaply and cutting corners leads to cutting results. We need to start thinking ouside the box and forget about the souped-up horse and buggy and come up with something more akin to the modern car. When I said "re-engineer" I meant exactly that. No tinkering. Start from scratch. Imagine the modern piano didn't exist. What are the chances that we would come up with the modern piano in its current form as a 21st century engineering solution? Not much. >If cheaper high end pianos are the goal, I wonder if high tech is >the path to that goal. You can buy a hand made harpsichord or >fortepiano for $15,000 - $25,000. These are made in the old >fashioned low-tech way, by hand, one at a time. Why does something >cranked out in a factory cost 10 times as much? A handmade c.1790 fortepiano it's more like $30K US for a good one. A handmade 1820 fortepiano is likely to set you back $50-60K US, more for a famous builder such as Chris Clarke. Extrapolate to the scale of a modern concert piano and you get well up there in the echelons of the current prices for Steinway Ds etc. This is no doubt reflective of the fact that much of work in making *any piano with the current type of design is hand work, and not efficiently automated. Hence the benefits of the factory are not translated to cheaper prices. I'm glad this discussion has come up. To re-iterate for emphasis and summary....when I said "re-engineer" I meant exactly that. No tinkering. Start from scratch. Imagine the modern piano didn't exist. What are the chances that we would come up with the modern piano in its current form as a 21st century engineering solution? How much of the current design of a modern piano is needed merely to accomodate the limitations of the materials and methods being used to make it? What are the critical design aspects that define the modern piano aesthetic? Stephen -- Dr Stephen Birkett, Associate Professor Department of Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo, Waterloo ON Canada N2L 3G1 Director, Waterloo Piano Systems Group Associate Member, Piano Technician's Guild E3 Room 3158 tel: 519-888-4567 Ext. 3792 fax: 519-746-4791 PianoTech Lab Room E3-3160 Ext. 7115 mailto: sbirkett[at]real.uwaterloo.ca http://real.uwaterloo.ca/~sbirkett
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC