Hi Don Thanks for the interesting reply. The open pinblock / unbushed pins thing moves in the direction of our famous circle of sound which so many have endless enjoyment ridiculing. Ok... so the marketing part of this claim can get a bit thick I think most of us will agree. But like you I remain open, and very much so, to the possibility that there more be to the whole idea then one initially may conclude. Noteworthy is also the example of the CF III. Yamaha also discounted the pin bushings thing for years.... but according to one of their main testing heads... a Mr Ono.... research their also led them to employing the bushingless idea because of its benificial affect on the overall sound picture. I am not convinced one way or the other either when it comes down to it... but my opinion at this point sways in favour... if for no other reason then their are too many such examples for me to ignore, and I find the marketing reasoning to be ....well.... too weak. JMPOVOTS. But this Bluthner now.... this is just a bit different. I'll have to post a picture of it later on. These bridges are morticed right into the pinblock. And the pinblocks leading edge is open as this instrument has no plate in the modern sense.. only iron brace bars that screw into metal plates for the hitchpins and the pinblock. There is a large metal I-beam like brace/connector that screws from this open face to the belly rail binding the whole thing into one unit. Interesting point you make about the soft termination at the front..... I will remember this comment as I get the thing put back together. The Bass front bridge has 22 notes with 10 single string unisons. The tenor front bridge has 21 trichords. From there up the front termination is taken care of by screw down capo-like bars. Perhaps the thinking was that this was a good thing for the longer strings ? A way of achieving some kind of balance ? Anyways... I thought it was interesting. Cheers, and thanks again for the post. RicB ric, I'll chime in briefly on this one because I have thought about this in a similar way - not with the front bridges you mention, but with the pinblock itself. There is a school of thought that open pinblocks, and even un-bushed plate webbing (no pin bushings) has a tonal benefit. I have heard of tone tests where a concert grand was first strung up, tuned, voiced, performed on and recorded with tuning pin bushings, then the pins were pulled, the bushings removed, and pins driven back in with the same strings. The piano was then tuned and stabilized, all of the string seating and voicing work was done, and the same pianist then performed the same music on the piano in the same recital hall. I have not heard the recordings, but I was told that a blind test using just the recordings was done with 20 piano knowledgeable people (about half of whom were technicians). Apparently the differences were not huge, but were audible enough that people could identify the differences in the recordings. According to someone who heard the two recitals, the sound was very obvious sitting in the hall - but of course that kind of evaluation is very subject to predispositions. The piano in question was one with a fully fitted pinblock, mortised into the case and stretcher. I don't have enough evidence to be convinced myself, but I respect the opinions of the person who told me about this, so I am open to this possibility. I am quite sure as well that the bridges you mention would contribute as well - perhaps not through coupling to the soundboard necessarily, but just the resulting vibrations of the pin panel and the stretcher would influence the overall tone. I feel that there is also a negative impact on the tone of having such a soft termination as a wood bridge at both ends of the strings, as with your Blüthner. At least, it would be negative to me, but then perhaps a more muted tone quality with shorter sustain in the high partials (which can seem to enhance the fundamental) was the intention of the designer. Don Mannino
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC