Inharmonicity

[Delwin D Fandrich]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment


robert sadowski wrote:

> Dear list,
>      A thought occurred to me concerning the practice of rescaling.  I know
> the first reason to do so is that we are improving the piano.  Admittidly,
> the early designers didn't have access to the tools we have now and would
> have used them if they had.
> I can't help comparing this to genetic engineering.  Are we possibly
> changing the nature of the instrument that two hundred years of evolution
> has brought us to?  Could it be that a certain amount of inharmonicity is
> part of the charm of the piano?  I'll admit that a Kimball spinet doesn't
> have a lot of charm and a lot of the other. I haven't seen this slant
> brought up before.  I hope it generates some opinions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bob Sadowski RPT
> Erie, PA

                                                     - - - - - - - - - -
                                                           WARNING
 The following is both long and sacrilegious. Hamburger may be made from some of your favorite beef. Continue on at your own
                                                            risk.
                                                     - - - - - - - - - -


Bob,

This debate has indeed been going on for at least twenty years. Just, perhaps, not on the internet. And there are, indeed,
two schools of thought about the practice. Since, in our shop we probably redesign and modify pianos more extensively than
anyone else, I'll pass on my thoughts and experiences with the process -- for whatever they may be worth.

First of all, when rescaling a piano the idea is not to remove string inharmonicity. Even if that were desirable, it is not
possible using real world music wire. In my stringing scale work, whether rescaling an old instrument or designing an
entirely new one, inharmonicity is fairly low on the list of priorities. It is there. It is inherent in the product -- we
don't really know what a piano would sound like without it. It nearly always needs to be smoothed out a bit, but it's not
something the piano owner -- the pianist -- is going to be greatly concerned with. It will affect the piano tuner
considerably more, but for the most part, I design stringing scales for the pianist, not the tuner. If compromises have to be
made -- and they are always there -- I'll make them on the side of the overall musicality of the instrument. Removing
inharmonicity is not the issue. It is the side show, not the main event.

I redesign pianos because I -- and more specifically, my customers -- don't like certain aspects of the sound produced by the
original design. To one degree or another, most grand pianos share the same common tonal maladies. First, the low bass tends
to be a bit "muddy," that is, there is usually very little -- if any -- energy in the fundamental and 1st couple of
harmonics. The energy is spread over the higher harmonics which are not always the most pleasant sounding to our ears.
Depending on the scale and the soundboard/rib design, even the pitch may not be clear and distinct to our ears. When more
than two or three notes are played in a bass chord the result can end up being a kind of acoustical blob. Smaller pianos are
afflicted more than larger ones, but there are even some "well respected" seven footers with bass sections that are none too
hot.

Second, the bass/tenor break is very often an acoustical nightmare. The low tenor strings tend to get muddy, or as recently
described in several posts to this list, they "boing." Three to six notes up, in most pianos, this has straightened out and
the tone quality has once again improved. Usually, this is considered a "voicing" problem. It is not. It is a stringing scale
and soundboard design problem.

Third, in the upper tenor/lower treble section, we find the "killer octave." This is that region found in  many, if not most,
grand pianos in which both sustain and power tend to fall away despite our best efforts to "turbo-voice" it, or "power-voice"
it  back.

Fourth, the high treble which, in most modern pianos, often needs massive amounts of hammer juice (whatever the magic elixir
you may choose to put in there) to bring up some semblance of tone and power.

If I've left something out -- and I'm sure I have, it is, after all early Sunday morning -- I'm sure I'll be reminded.

Not all of these maladies are the fault of the stringing scale, but some of them are. The overall tone of the low bass can be
improved by making the strings somewhat more flexible. This can be done by reducing the size of the core wires somewhat. In
spite of some recent claims to the contrary, modern wire is capable of sustaining higher tension than that used at, and prior
to, the turn of the century. Smaller core wires can now be used with safety. With the advent of the computer, we are able to
model stringing scales with some precision. Early bass string scaling was done strictly by guess work. Well educated and
experienced guess work, to be sure, but still, it was done with a great deal of uncertainty.

There are a lot of reasons for bad bass/tenor breaks. Most of them have to do with the bridge layout, the soundboard design
and the rib design. But some of them have to do with the stringing scale. Those can be fixed with the proper application of
basic stringing scale principles.

The killer octave and the weak high treble are primarily a soundboard and rim design problem, but even here it can help to
make sure that no radical dips appear in the stringing scale tension plot.

So, to the extent that the stringing scale contributes to these problems, why not fix them when the opportunity presents
itself? Surely most of us find it acceptable to voice hammers to attempt to improve these same tonal problems. I hear and
read much about selecting just the "right" set of hammers for any given piano, yet each will give a different tone and each
will be somewhat different from the original. We are always trying to "improve" the performance of the piano in these ways,
why not with the stringing scale as well? Or for that matter, with the soundboard/rib design?

Yes, we do hear comments about our redesigned pianos not sounding like the original. So far, in every case, however, that has
come in the form of a compliment, not a complaint. The complaints we hear come from other technicians. From the owners we
hear things like "I still can't believe the clarity and depth you've given to my old piano." Or, "I wept with joy the first
time I played my 'new' [piano]." Or, "I haven't gotten a decent lesson from my teacher since I got my [piano] from you -- he
can't stop playing it. He plays through my whole lesson period." ...Well, you get the idea.

I love antique cars, too. But I don't want to drive one every day. There are many reasons why the acoustic development of the
piano has slowed, if not actually stopped, but one of them is not that the acoustical development of the piano is complete.

Well, enough rambling. Pianos are not humans. They are the product of inventive human minds. They exist only to give their
owner (and listeners) the pleasure of creating, and listening to, music. In the end, only the music matters. I will do
whatever it takes to improve the musicality of the instruments we work on.

Regards,

Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Designer & Builder
PianoBuilders/NW
724 Levee Street
Hoquiam, WA  98550

Phone 360.532-6688
Fax  360.532-6582
E.mail  pianobuilders@olynet.com

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/17/d4/34/d5/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--