A440A@aol.com wrote: > > David wrote: > > >Many of us noticed that the rescaling of the recently made Mason & Hamlin > >BBs with the addition of wound bichords at the bottom of the understrung > >section created a poor tone in that section even though the graphs of > >inharmonicity were "Improved". > > I must agree. On one 9' Chickering with which I had been wrestling into > tune for a studio, the Sanderson Scale made all the difference in the world. > However, on a smaller Chickering, ( 25 note bass, 5'4") the rescaling > provided for a cleaner tuning, but something was missing from the overall > sound. > This is not yet an exact science of inharmonicity. > Regards, > Ed Foote ---------- Ed, Ditto my remarks in response to David's comments. I gave my last class on rescaling pianos about twenty–some years ago. After the first two or three, I stopped doing them because there was so much mis-use of the concepts involved. It had gotten really wild in those days—the numbers were everything. The numbers and charts and graphs had to right at all cost—no matter what they did to the piano. Some of the scales generated during this time were actually dangerous. Bass strings with core wires way too small broke and went flying across the room. Bass string scales with overall tensions that were way too high for safety were put on pianos that stressed their plates to the limit. Few of them actually made the piano sound better. But, by gosh, did that inharmonicity curve look great, or what! Then, along came the Dave Roberts’ articles, and "rescaling" became legitimate. Unfortunately, he was a devotee of inharmonicity and, as a result of his writing, much of the rescaling work done since then has had providing a “good inharmonicity curve” a primary goal. And, while the numbers being generated using the formulas in his articles were accurate, they often had little to do with defining—or improving—the tone quality of the piano. If you’re starting with a completely new design, inharmonicity can be made to work in smoothly with the several other, much more pertinent, stringing scale parameters. Otherwise, it will rarely be completely satisfactory. And that’s OK—since on my list it’s about third or fourth in order of importance. I will always sacrifice inharmonicity for tone quality. A less than perfect inharmonicity curve may bother the piano tuner—or, more probably, his machine—but a poorly balanced stringing scale will bother the pianist. I’m much more concerned with the musical performance of the piano than I am its “tunability.” (Sorry, folks, but it’s still the music that matters. Not the numbers.) Today there are computer programs available that allow anyone to purchase a program and start generating “redesigned stringing scales.” (By the way, does this problem sound familiar? It should. If the reader recognizes it, he/she can supply all of the arguments on both sides. If not, my articulating them out won’t help much.) I don’t know anything about the string scale programs that are available either commercially or as freeware, but I’m sure that the numbers are generated are accurate representations of the formulas used. But are the formulas being used correctly? Who knows? Certainly not the computer programmer. No matter how slick or clever the program, it can’t provide the necessary experience that will enable the user to generate musically balanced stringing scales. Like tuning, string scale design—or redesign—is a skill developed slowly. Like tuning, it requires thoughtful study and practice and then more practice and study. Each scale done must be studied and thought about. After it has been put on the piano. Listen to the piano, it will tell you if the scale is working or not. Why did this idea work and why did this other one not? Eventually, the various parameters begin to fall in place. The development of stringing scales—whether for new piano designs or for old—is not yet an exact science. It involves making a sequence of compromises based on judgment calls that are still somewhat more art than science. (Those who know me can understand how much it pains me to say this. I’d love to see piano design become pure science. But it isn’t. At least not yet...slick computerized scale design programs notwithstanding.) The numbers don’t lie, but they do have to be thoughtfully interpreted. As with all experimental work done on pianos—and for most of the new practitioners, rescaling pianos must still be considered experimental—I recommend that every student’s early rescaling work be done on his or her own piano. Why should the client suffer if the experiment doesn’t work? Unfortunately, I fear that most rescaling experience is going be gained at the customers expense. The M & H BB scale in question did not match the overall design of the piano. And, no, I didn’t have to analyze the scale or look at any charts or graphs to learn that—the pianos simply didn’t sound very good. The same applied to many of the stringing scales that Kimball tried out. The sales reps would be telling me how great these new stringing scales were—and I’m sure they were great on paper—but my ears were saying NO, the pianos simply don’t sound good and it matters not who generated the numbers or what the graphs looked like. String scale design cannot stand alone. It must be integrated into the overall design of the piano. In the case of the BB scale that integration was not done at all well. And it should have been obvious to those involved that it hadn’t worked. The piano simply didn’t sound very good, and no amount of voicing was going to fix it. I think too often there is a feeling that if the numbers and the graphs are “right” then the piano tone must be right and our ears must be deceiving us if they don’t agree. There is no magic in rescaling. It cannot solve all of the problems of all piano designs. Sometimes the best that can be hoped for is to make the original design a bit less bad! Even this has it’s value. Well, I could keep going on, but I hope I’ve made my point. A computer program cannot rescale a piano any better than it can tune one. It still requires a knowledgeable and experienced human in between to get the job done correctly. Regards, Del
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC