Hello Ric. Nice to hear all this. Just one thought. It is my understanding that the mid 19th century new wave of builders (Blüthner, Bechstein and Steinway) were aiming for a new kind of piano based on the recently available (in industrial quantities) English steel, meaning louder instruments thanks to heavier stringing patterns. Pleyel factory did the same at the same time (exactly the time Pleyel (son) himself died and passed the commands to Wolff, who initiated the new stringing patterns). It is useful to compare C5 length and thickness in pianos of that period to get a hint about the overall stringing scheme. Here are some examples from my experience : For the note C5, Pleyel 1840 has 295 mm length and 0.850 mm thickness (beware, this is not the English steel yet, it is that easily bendable iron wire) Pleyel 1864 has 309 mm length and 0.875 mm thickness (this is Firminy wire, very close to the modern Röslau wire) Pleyel 1895 has 355 mm length and 0.975 mm thickness (this is the heaviest stringing I have met; you should see the soundboard underneath... a Panzer) Bechstein 1871 has 326 mm length and 0.875 mm thickness (this is straight strung) Bechstein 1871 has 326 mm length and 0.925 mm thickness (this is cross strung) Bechstein 1878 has 332 mm length and 0.975 mm thickness Steinway 1891 has 326 mm length and 0.950 mm thickness Knabe 1877 has 320 mm length and 1.000 mm thickness I would like to know where your Blüthner stands. I'd guess around 320 mm and 0.875 mm, and as such, it would be reasonable to think that the intention was a modern sound (for that period). What did you do to the soundboard for adding stiffness ? Add weight underneath ? And this "improved" the bass, causing more lower partials volume ? I would have guessed that it would increase the tenor sustain, at the cost of volume. Does the instrument have a sort of floating bass design ? Tapered board in that region ? Fanned ribbing ? Best regards. Stéphane Collin. Hi Stéphane, any others interested... We just had one of Europes better known piano forté pianists in for a masterclass today and will give a concert tomorrow and he was interested in checking out the Bluthner. Bart Van Oort. He was absolutely enthralled ! This is the first direct feedback I've had from someone who's very familiar with how these kinds of instruments sound. I had just made some adjustments to add some stiffness to the cross over area between the lower tenor and bass bridge and the sound <<improvement>> was quite significant. His only "criticism" actually went in the opposite direction my ears want me to go with this thing. He said it was just a bit too boomy in the lower tenor and bass... which was what I'd just addressed. He also said if I was looking for a Brahms kind of sound then I should leave it like I have it, but if I was looking for an earlier period sound I should thin out the lower tenor and bass and concentrate on an flat clean attack sound that does not swell. Very encouraging comments to be sure. I'll have to try and get a decent recording of this instrument pretty soon and post it. In anycase... I'm tickled pink at his response. Cheers RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC