[pianotech] Terry’s Mason & Hamlin up.

[Dale Erwin]

Hi Del
 First let me say this is an E-mail format & things can be easily misconstrued, so to be clear I wasn't voicing a skeptics eyed opinion at all about the M&H design mods, but just asking for a subjective review of the tonal  reality of the results. I think most of that came thru from you. 
   The reason I asked for a tonal description from Terry was that for over ten years we have talked about Soundboard design & a great deal on this list & I highly value that, enormously, its changed my life (a gross understatement) and have learned much here. Del...I am in your debt as well as the others willing to risk and build
    But I've learned more tonally by building them  myself and then listening, but then I didn't really have a choice as I have not had opportunity to hear any of your pianos ever demonstrated or Ron Ns till N.Y. in 06 or any one else venturing into redesign. The first hybrid I heard in person was Ron Overs piano in Reno. 
   So,I put into practice many things you and others have generously shared and the results keep getting better. My recipes I am very confident about at htis point and I'm still on a learning curve as we all are.
   Rochester was a tonal smorgasbord for me and others and the value of rebuilders gallerys is just this....
   We can talk, talk ,talk, but the proof is in the listening. Such a beautiful confluence of idea at these events. Anyway...
  I've done a fair amount or redesign up to this point with a great deal of satisfaction but some not.  Some have been failures or... not up to what I wanted to hear. But mostly we don't admit that here. But 98 % success rate however I measure it is a good number for any manufacturer of anything. But to be clear I love a good rib crowned board built with subtle enhancements &  voiced meticulously, as so do most clients. In fact I've offered to build a soundboard any way with any thing anyone asks for, with in reason of course.
The only thing we're short on in all these discussion is MP3s or some way to sample the outcomes. I'm working n that.
Anyway

You wrote
I don’t at all understand what you mean when you write, “17 ribs is the same number as a stock D so it had sufficient mass and stiffness from the original design to support crown and drive tone.” Drive tone? I’m not sure what this means; please explain. And seventeen ribs will certainly support crown—assuming the ribs themselves are actually crowned—but so will nine ribs if they are similarly crowned. 

  Ok, my explanation may use different words .... this many ribs, (17), in a upright board which is smaller than a D, is plenty  adequate to provide mass and stiffness for superior impedance control and unwanted resonance elimination as well as provide a structure capable of crow-nal longevity.  When I say drives the tone, I mean A tone that is  long on sustain,like a soprano holding the glory notes crescendo-ing over the bar line, low on distortion, or power without noise & clarity, a nice tonal envelope or timbrel envelope.
   I think we both agreed the original design does a pretty fair job of that tonally.  I may not use all  the same terminology that you might but what I do know is what I like to hear, and soundboards with more ribs are usually exhibiting more sustain and clarity than those that do not... crown or no crown. I've come to understand the majority of uprights ever built had little to no crown to add to the stiffness equation and were simply mass and stiffness dependent for tone production.
  For example most full size upright with only 9 or 10 ribs do not excite me and haven't survived well. Not enough mass or stiffness. This Mason upright had more smaller ribs in the treble, I think 7 or 8 and the rest in the bottom. 107 years old with old strings and hammers and such and it still rocked my sonic tonal world.
 SO naturally as a person of interest here I'm wanting to hear the beauty in this beast or at least some one else describe it and how it was thought to be improved. You did that & I thank you
  Best
  Dale






Dale Erwin... RPT
 Mason & Hamlin/Steinway/U.S pianos
www.Erwinspiano.com
209-577-8397




 
  





-----Original Message-----
From: Delwin D Fandrich <del at fandrichpiano.com>
To: pianotech <pianotech at ptg.org>
Sent: Tue, May 22, 2012 10:42 am
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Terry’s Mason & Hamlin up.



I’ve not yet had the pleasure of hearing Terry’s M&H upright. I have, however, been able to see and hear several other pianos that have been rebuilt to a very similar design. That is, the same basic soundboard design and scaling had been adapted to fit a specific back assembly and plate design; each is slightly different because of variations in the basic platforms but the essentials of the soundboard design remain the same. 
 
I agree with you that the early M&H upright can sound pretty good. But it shares certain performance limitations that are common to most early—and some contemporary—upright pianos. The bass, while big and strong, is not as articulate as it might be with the bass wave envelope lacking any significant energy at the fundamental and first harmonic. The bass-to-tenor crossover is typically rough, the low tenor hook giving a somewhat tubby sound even in high-end pianos like M&H. The tenor and treble are usually pretty good though I don’t remember being overly impressed by either the power or the timbral dynamics of the high treble. 
 
I don’t at all understand what you mean when you write, “17 ribs is the same number as a stock D so it had sufficient mass and stiffness from the original design to support crown and drive tone.” Drive tone? I’m not sure what this means; please explain. And seventeen ribs will certainly support crown—assuming the ribs themselves are actually crowned—but so will nine ribs if they are similarly crowned. And I once replaced a soundboard in a 6’-something Chickering that was originally built with just five ribs. As each of these was about 2” tall and heavily crowned the thing had lots of crown but it also had some significant variations in power and sustain across the scale. Great power and short sustain in between the ribs and excellent sustain but little power right on the ribs. Good crown, though.
 
Whether or not this sort of rebuilding/redesign appeals to anyone is highly subjective. If you’re happy with the way the original sounds you’ll not see any value at all in changing things. Indeed it will probably be seen as heresy and a thing to be avoided. This was the general attitude of most technicians back in the 1970s when I started presenting my ideas of how to alter original designs to achieve results otherwise unobtainable. Indeed, if memory serves, Dale, you were among the skeptics but you now seem to be venturing into the realm of at least moderate design changes in some of your own work. Although—now nearly 40 years later—at least some of those early ideas have begun to catch on outside the circle of early pioneers many still do regard the very notion of altering original design with a combination of skepticism, fear and contempt. This is a part of piano rebuilding that is clearly not for everybody; whether the results achieved by changing the original designs are found desirable or not is, as I’ve said, subjective. Just as the firm ride and precise handling of a Porsche is found desirable by some and uncomfortable by others. Still, even the traditionalist technician had to admit that the Steinway M with its relocated bass bridge and cleaned up scaling is simply a better sounding musical instrument than the same model having authentic design and parts.
 
Getting back to the admittedly radical upright design—my goals in developing this design for upright pianos were simple: I wanted a clearer, more articulate bass (not necessarily louder), a musically transparent bass-to-tenor transition, an open and musically dynamic tenor and a treble with a little more depth (a loud treble is nice but I wanted a little more timbral range between pianissimo and forte). While the goals were simple achieving them was not. This basic design was developed for our own 122 cm upright but the concept translates well to both larger and smaller pianos. Each of the upright pianos I’ve heard that was redesigned and rebuilt using this concept did so and I was pleased to hear them (as were their owners). But, I have come to find, these are not goals that are either shared or sought after by all pianists or by all technicians and such is life.
 
ddf 
 
 
 
Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Design & Fabrication
6939 Foothill Court SW, Olympia, Washington 98512 USA
Phone  360.515.0119 — Cell  360.388.6525
del at fandrichpiano.com — ddfandrich at gmail.com
 
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Dale Erwin
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 6:55 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Terrys Mason & Hamlin up.
 
Hi Terry
  I've enjoyed these pictures again and the discussion of engineering of course but where is this piano  now and more importantly....what does it sound like? Who plays it? I don't care how subjective the words you may use to describe it are,  or may seem to some, but I'd like to know. Any recordings?
 I don't know what year this M&H is but I have heard original ones that had a very well made rib scale with more smaller ribs in the top treble  and 17 ribs total. 17 ribs is the same number as a stock D so it had sufficient mass and stiffness from the original design to support crown and drive tone. 
 Not only that but the 1905 I heard.... sounded stellar, old strings and all. Amazing sonorous sustain and a balanced  scale thru out. Honestly....I would have been hard pressed to think that in this case the design could have been improved substantially. So I'm curious about all this as I have a Gorgeous Victorian Hardman upright that Carl Meyer gave me before he died and that I will rebuild at some point
 Just my thoughts on it.
Dale

Dale Erwin... RPT
Mason & Hamlin/Steinway/U.S pianos
www.Erwinspiano.com
209-577-8397

 
  

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Farrell <mfarrel2 at tampabay.rr.com>
To: pianotech <pianotech at ptg.org>
Sent: Fri, May 18, 2012 3:57 am
Subject: Re: [pianotech] S&S K(52) Restoration

Thanks Dean. I may have gotten a little gray, but I can still get real aggressive.........

 

Mmmmmmm, hard maple splinters with hide glue sauce!

 



 

Terry Farrell

 

On May 17, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Dean May wrote:






Nice to have you back, Terry. I missed your cool pictures. You are looking a little grayer around the muzzle there… 


 


 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20120522/c435e2d0/attachment.htm>