High tension? Low? Board stiffness? was Hammer Types

[Alan McCoy]

Hey Jason,
 
Any way you could scan in or otherwise copy that Sanderson handout and send
it to me?
 
Thanks.
 
Alan
 
 --Alan McCoy, RPT
Inland Northwest Chapter
Spokane, WA
ahm at webband.com 
 
  _____  

From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Jason Kanter
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:24 PM
To: Pianotech List
Subject: Re: High tension? Low? Board stiffness? was Hammer Types



According to a handout from Dr. Albert Sanderson, the ranges for "very low"
to "very high" tension scales are:
Monochords: 200 to 290 pounds
Bichords: 160 to 235 pounds
Trichords: 140 to 200 pounds
 
He also provides a graph of low-to-high inharmonicity, but this is more
difficult to describe. For High, the graph of inharmonicity constant B, in
cents, goes from 0.24 at note 1, down to a low of 0.13 at note 18, and then
rises steadily to 21.0 at note 88.
For Low, these three points are 0.21 at note 1, 0.1 at note 21, and 10.2 at
note 88.
 
Jason

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Alan McCoy <mailto:ahm at webband.com>  
To: 'Pianotech List' <mailto:pianotech at ptg.org>  
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:46 PM
Subject: High tension? Low? Board stiffness? was Hammer Types


Hi,

In the recent hammer types thread David Love and others talked about
high-tension and low-tension scales. Quantitatively what does that mean? I'd
like to see some actual, real-world parameters as to the upper and lower
limits of tension for high-tension and low-tension scales. Would these
parameters change correspondingly as the size of the piano changes? 

Ditto for inharmonicity. 

I don't ask for much, do I?! ;-)

While we're at it, can soundboard stiffness be evaluated (at least
qualitatively) on your basic fully-strung piano in someone's living room?
What are the major factors that define stiffness? Does downbearing play a
role here? I'm looking for an answer that has specific, measurable
quantities like, "A stiff system has ribs spaced x inches apart with each
rib notched into the rim. Ribs are x inches in profile under the long bridge
tapering to x inches then tapering to x inches at the rim. A stiff board is
x inches thick under the long bridge tapering to ......, whereas a flexible
system ..................." And also, "X piano brand is a good example of a
stiff system, whereas x pianos use a more flexible system..........." You
get the idea.

The other thing in this thread that got my attention was the description of
the hammer types matched to the Walter scale. I installed a set of Ronsen
Wurzen hammers on a Baldwin L last year. I would characterize the sound as
being darker and colorful, and maybe needing a little juice especially in
the top 2 octaves for a bit more definition. Needling was not even a
consideration for these hammers on this piano . But David's description of
the Wurzens on the Walter paints a very different picture of Ronsen Wurzens.
So what gives? Is there a lot of difference in Wurzens from set to set? Or
is it that if we were to put the same Wurzens on the Baldwin L and then the
Walter, we would have "dark" hammers on one, but "bright" hammers on the
other, the explanation being that the tone produced is a function of the
interaction of the hammer with the board system? Is it possible for their to
be enough difference in the board system to produce such different tone
(needling like hell vs. maybe needing a bit of juice) from the same type of
hammer (assuming the hammers are identical)?

Trying to educate myself. Thanks for any responses and thanks also to David
for initiating this interesting thread.

Alan

 


  _____  

From: David Love [mailto:davidlovepianos at comcast.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:55 PM
To: 'Pianotech List'
Subject: Changing the tone on tone: was RE: Hammer Types



"They don't make pianofortes anymore, they just make fortes"

 

Paraphrased remark attributed to Dale Erwin's father that has always stuck
with me.

 

 

Cellist to Pianist:  "Can't you play any softer"

Pianist:  "Well, actually.no, I can't"

 

Conversation overheard at a rehearsal of the Brahms B Major Trio:

 

 

Tone is everything in piano work, in my view.   The rest is secondary, or
simply mechanical.  There's no precise language for it like Alizarin Crimson
or burnt garlic, and so it's difficult to talk about with any assurance that
your experience is the same as mine.  We can only assume that the words we
choose describe the sound that I think you might be hearing-if you are.  In
spite of how my views have been misrepresented, I am really quite open about
tone.  There are a broad range of possibilities and a variety of tastes to
go with them.  I have customers who love their Yamahas, the bright and
powerfully percussive tone they offer and those who wouldn't be caught dead
playing one for the same reasons.  I have Steinway customers who long for
that dark, warm, singing tone that they recall from their childhood and
others whose Steinways simply can't be made bright enough or loud enough.
When it comes to addressing the needs of a particular piano or customer
preferences, we need to be open to what the piano can deliver and what the
customer wants.  And I am.  "Whatever you want" is my mantra when it comes
to customer work, even if I wouldn't choose it myself.  When rebuilding a
piano with original materials I always engage customers in a discussion
about tone, what they like, or don't like, how I can make the piano to best
suit their tastes.  If they want something that will be difficult to achieve
with a given piano, I tell them.  I might even go so far as to say that if
that's what they want, they own the wrong piano.  It can happen.  Each
piano's design pushes its tonal signature in one direction or the other.
Scale design, soundboard design and health, rim structure, plate design, all
contribute to the direction in which the piano can comfortably be pushed.
Try to make it into something it's not and you end up with a mediocre result
at best (a structural disaster at worst).  Will the customer be happy
anyway?  They might.   It's likely that whatever you do to a piano that is
on the brink of disintegration will be an improvement.  Sometimes we have to
be content to do that-and certainly I have.    

 

When working with old and tired soundboards, we must (in today's parlance)
accept them for what they are.  Trying to get them to perform as if they
were new and expecting the same type of tone generally leads to a
disappointing result.  Accepting the structural and thereby tonal changes
that occur with old boards allows us, if we listen carefully, to perhaps
modify our scale design, pick a more suitable hammer now than the original
and/or modify our voicing strategy to make the best of what the board still
has to offer.  That can lead to a very acceptable, even beautiful result.
But it will be different from the original no matter what we do and the
sooner we accept that, the better off we are.  We can try and force our own
tastes onto the piano but, if we are honest, only in so far as the piano's
design or condition allows.  

 

When it comes to building a piano from the ground up, however, or
reengineering a scale and soundboard, then we are absolved of all previous
commitments and we have real choices that we can make (existing plate
considerations notwithstanding).  High, medium or low tension scales are
where things start.  From the low tension scales of Estonia to the high
tension scales characterized by many Japanese pianos, each one will have
their own soundboard requirements, hammer requirements and accompanying
tonal character.  I happen to like low tension sound (but not too low)
better than high tension sound, so left to my own devices I would chose a
platform that supports that preference.  If tonal expectations of a customer
were better associated with a high tension scale, however, then, given the
means, I would be fine to build that as well.  Either way, I would expect
that design differences would produce differences in tonal character (let's
put the wart issue aside for now) and that accompanying hammer requirements
as well as voicing requirements would also be different.  

 

In summary, each scale and soundboard assembly pushes the instrument in a
particular direction.  While there is always a range of possibilities within
any particular design, each design does carry its own tonal bias.  As piano
technicians, trying to bring out the best in each piano we come across, we
hear those differences intuitively.  We adjust our expectations according to
each instrument and each instrument becomes our temporary standard for the
possibilities of good tone.  If we find something that appeals to us we tend
to latch onto it and carry it around as our model.  But that can hurt as
well as help us.  It helps us by giving us a higher standard for each piano
we encounter.  It hurts us in that the expectations we carry forward are not
always realistic-or desirable-for the next instrument and we can end up
trying to force the piano toward our ideal with a poorer result than if we'd
been open to what the piano really had to offer in the first place.
Power, brightness, sustain, clarity, warmth, richness, dynamic range: in a
piano we don't get to simply opt for the maximum amount of each.  They all
exist in a multi-dimensional continuum in which you sometimes trade one for
another in a never ending balancing act achieved both by design and
execution.  There are, no doubt, many acceptable formulas within that
continuum dictated by a variety of factors, not the least of which is just
exactly what music is being played.  We should probably accept that in so
far as there are a variety of tonal formulas as well as musical
requirements, no single piano (or treatment) will be perfect for all types
of music, players, audiences or technicians.  So when given the opportunity,
why not be faithful to ourselves?  Vive la difference!  

 

 

 

David Love
davidlovepianos at comcast.net
www.davidlovepianos.com 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20061019/534e06a9/attachment-0001.html