current upright stringing scales?

[Ron Overs]

Del and list,

>. . . . . . .
>The Fandrich 122 had a 32 note bass section with 12 mono-chords and 20
>bi-chords, all on the bass bridge. If there is another version of this piano
>it will use the same string layout--i.e., 32 unisons on the bass bridge--but
>will use 14 mono-chords and 18 bi-chords.

I presume you meant to type "32 notes on the bass bridge" - and not 
". . unisons . . ".

>No. There are no "good" verticals using plain steel strings down to C-28. At
>least not verticals of 52" or less. Nor will there be. At least not if by
>"good" you mean pianos having reasonably smooth and consistent bass/tenor
>crossovers.
>
>Del

Well said Del - I totally agree.

Good on you for having the courage to go where most designers fear to 
tread. If only 'the crowd' would place the cross over where it yields 
the best results, instead of where the sales people think it should 
go, or where it's been for the past century. Let's get off the 
tradition treadmill and incorporate new ideas where they are proving 
to be the better way. This abhorrent trend of certain makers building 
their instruments allegedly to that of the original design, just 
because of some myth that 'they did it right' back then whenever that 
was, makes my mind boil over. It's regressive advertising garbage. 
Especially after the interesting piano exhibits at Reno, where I 
noticed one manufacturer who is making much of this philosophy, yet 
the so-called traditional piano I tried from this maker had perhaps 
one of the worst tonal changes over the crossover that I have heard 
to date. Clearly, whether the scale in question was drafted back in 
1900 or whether it was done just yesterday, the designer hasn't got a 
clue.

Anyhow, what's so wrong with doing a new design when compared to 
sticking with tradition? Today, we have every bit as much 
intelligence and creative ability as the generations which have gone 
before, but we have the added advantage of a better understanding of 
material science, and the aid of a useful analytical tool in the form 
of a computer. No, the new product is not computer designed - the 
advertisements are wrong. Computers are just dumb machines. The new 
product was designed by a capable designer with the aid of a computer.

Unfortunately a large majority of 'modern' designs demonstrate a 
complete lack of understanding on the part of the designer. While 
there were a couple of pianos exhibited at Reno which had a truly 
modern scales (the Blüthner 7'8" was very impressive with a 
bass/treble cross at A#26/B27 which sounded as good as it looked) I 
didn't see any decently scaled verticals. Most designers still seem 
to be content with the retention of the totally outdated hockey stick 
end treble bridge. Will it be 2101 before we see the last of these 
scaling disasters in a new piano? One of the high end grands 
exhibited at Reno had a 'hockey stick' which was only 'designed' only 
two years ago (I asked the factory technician). What a regrettable 
situation, that we should be emulating the designs of 1902 pianos 
with 2002 equipment.

My hat's in - Go!

Ron O
-- 
Overs Pianos
Sydney Australia
________________________

Web site: http://www.overspianos.com.au
Email:     mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au
________________________