<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" = xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; = charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = name="place"/> <o:SmartTagType = namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> David,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The low bass is really thuddy and = it gets better to the break. (Although the side by side shows the original = design even worse!) Hellerbass did the rescale and strings. I may get Arledge to do = it and then we could see, w/o changing any more variables, what that = does.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I didn’t measure the new = strings to compare, since I don’t do much rescaling (yet), but I guess I = should. It has a tendency to make my head explode. Vince thinks I should just get = the low bass replaced from Arledge and see what that does. What do you = think?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> Thanks for the feedback. I = certainly need it with this project. I’m not willing to let this = “stand” just to be done with it because I feel it will be of value to us all. = There are a bunch of these rascals around and I certainly want to find the best = formula I can. It may be that I need a new board design and the whole banana. = I’m just trying to see if I can find a cost/time efficient = fix.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I will update you with more = info.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Regards,<o:p></o:p></p= > Jim Busby = BYU<o:p></o:p> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love Sent: Friday, February = 10, 2006 7:14 AM To: '<st1:PersonName = w:st="on">College and University Technicians</st1:PersonName>' Subject: RE: [CAUT] 1098 = slight redesign<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> Is it thuddy all the way down or = just in the low bass?  Who made the strings and did the rescaling of the bass?  When you rescaled the bass what kind of core wire dimension = did you end up with in the monos and how did the dimensions compare overall with = the original?  The original Steinway core dimensions on those are quite = thick (.063 at A0 often).  On pianos that I’ve had rescaled = I’ve noticed that the core wires ended up somewhat thinner and that double = wraps were added in the low bass.  These rescalings have always improved = the tone at the lower part of the piano.  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> <div> David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net <o:p></o:p> </div> -----Original = Message----- From: = caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On = Behalf Of Jim Busby Sent: Thursday, February = 09, 2006 11:22 AM To: <st1:PersonName = w:st="on">College and University Technicians</st1:PersonName> Subject: [CAUT] 1098 = slight redesign<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> List,<o:p></o:= p>  <o:p></o= :p> We just finished a restringing/slight redesign of a 1963 Steinway upright. = <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o= :p> 1.       = We ground down the “bump” and lowered the pressure bar slightly. This = made tuning a <st1:place w:st="on">LOT</st1:place> better. Easier and more = stable. <o:p></o:p> 2.       = We shortened the apron on the bass bridge (cantilever) to give 85mm (backscale) on = the lowest bass note. It was 40mm. <o:p></o:p> 3.       = It now has Pure Sound stainless wire. This made the biggest difference. Richer, = more stable. <o:p></o:p> 4.       = Added a small tenor bridge. I’m not sure if this made much of a = difference, but the break does seem to be smoother and the bichords seem to have a = slightly stronger fundamental. <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o= :p> A side by side listen with = the same model showed vast improvements in the plain wire sections. I think this = was mainly due to the stainless wire. Also, it tunes like a dream now! = Removing the bump was easy and well worth it. <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o= :p> Although the piano is = improved, in some ways greatly, I still don’t like the bass. It’s better = than the old design but still a bit “thumpy”. Any = feedback??<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o= :p> I attached a = “before” picture and a close up of the bridge changes. The “bump” = area looks like the new 1098s so I didn’t take a picture of = that.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o= :p> I highly recommend the “bump” removal and the Pure Sound wire. Jury’s still = out on the other changes.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o= :p> Regards,<o:p><= /o:p>  <o:p></o= :p> Jim Busby = BYU<o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html>