Electric piano

[Delwin D Fandrich]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Horace Greeley" <hgreeley@stanford.edu>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: January 05, 2001 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Electric piano


>
> Hmmm - well, I never was a "qualified" installer, but your experiences
with
> the console/wiring problems are parallel to my own.  One did get a chance
> to build one's skills with crimping tools and soldering irons.

Too smart to get caught in that trap, huh? Go ahead...rub it in.



(snip)
> Interesting.  Having only ever heard the first part of this, I have always
> wondered why that change was made.  I wonder if, had Baldwin stayed with
> their original thinking, would there have been sufficient room in the box
> to allow for better electronics?  Miniaturization was not as well
> developed, and most of the pickups and amps required +/- 12 V.D.C. for
> operation and so, were inherently noisy.  I am not sure that the lab was
in
> production long enough for a redesign to use FET transistors, which would
> have helped.

I'm not sure the electronics was really the problem. Besides the connectors
I think it was mostly the switching -- it was a nightmare. A few years back
I serviced Electronic Counter-Measures equipment on B-52's. The switching
scheme on these things was more complex than anything I encountered on the
BUF's and the switches were of a quality that would have done Radio Schlock
proud. They simply tried to do too much with too little -- especially, too
little quality.

What it would have done, of course, would have been to save the company huge
amounts of development money that might have been better spent on higher
quality switching and cabling. It would have also made them infinitely
easier to service, making it possible, perhaps, for the schools to get them
serviced at least as easily as their normal pianos. I could never figure why
anyone would have thought that those six inches was worth all the effort it
took to lose them. The end product would certainly have performed better and
would probably have been cheaper to manufacture.

Part of Baldwin's plan for these things was to sell them to the general
public as a stand-alone instrument -- a plan that never worked out in
practice, for obvious reasons. Who knows, if they had built them on either a
conventional spinet or console piano back, they might actually have had some
chance in the marketplace. I've often wondered what one would sound like.



> ....I do not remember the name of the head Baldwin technician in LA at the
> time, but do remember that he said that the bridge was fitted with
> individually tuned crystal pickups for each note.

Not in the instruments I'm talking about. These simply used a series of
appropriate force transducers mounted every few unisons between a fixed base
attached to the standard SD-6 rim bracing structure and the bridge. The
outputs from the various force transducers was mixed together and fed to one
of (I think) several amplifiers.



> That would fit in with
> my memory of the sound.  In retrospect, I wonder if this period did not
> coincide with the development of the AccuJust hitchpin setup - the reason
> being that, if the technician was right about the crystals, then the
> downbearing across them would have had to have been most carefully set to
> avoid crushing both the crystals and their housings.

I don't know. As a type, though, force transducers are fairly tough and I
think bearing was set in pretty much a traditional fashion and using a
traditional amount. Could be wrong about the last...


Del
Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Designer & Builder
Hoquiam, Washington  USA
E.mail:  pianobuilders@olynet.com
Web Site:  http://pianobuilders.olynet.com/