New, Improved Baldwins

[Delwin D Fandrich]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher D. Purdy" <purdy@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: January 23, 2001 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: New, Improved Baldwins



> I do, however, have some big problems.  For one, the tuning pin alignment
> on the verticals is really bad in the third octave.  String alignment is
> impossible with the way the strings weave through adjacent pins.

Which model(s)?

Laying out the tuning pin field is one of the more interesting, and
sometimes frustrating, parts of piano design. Often overlooked in its
importance, it has little glamour or pizzazz. Besides, the only folks who
will ever notice if it's not done well are the piano tuners. Getting it
right just above the bass/tenor break is particularly tricky. The designer
is usually trying to work all the 'size' -- i.e., string length -- into the
piano he or she can get and often this comes at the expense of the front
scale (would that be the 'top scale' in a vertical?). If the strings are
laid over too far -- angled overly much -- then side-to-side spacing becomes
a problem. If he has crowded the vertical height too much then vertical
spacing is the problem. Usually there is a combination of both.

The only way to really resolve these problems is to back off on the overall
string lengths a bit (given a specific overall height for the back). My own
view is that the overall height of the piano is not all that big a deal;
make the piano serviceable. Pick your scale and then build the back
appropriately. In the case of the 743/5 back, this means making the overall
height of the piano about 10 to 12 mm taller. Not much, considering the
improvements that could be gained.

I'm just finishing up a spec design for a small vertical of similar size --
the back is 1400 mm (55.1") wide by 1100 mm (43.3") high. As I recall, this
is about 20 mm (0.8") taller than the 743/5 back. Still, it was quite a
juggling act. (No, I don't know if I'm going to build a prototype of it yet.
Maybe -- it is a "small piano" after all.)



> My main beef, though, is with the regulating of the grands we got this
> year.  They were fine when they got here but over the Christmas break the
> regulation went completely out the window.  It wasn't just little
> adjustments due to felt impacting, they went way out.  I had to completely
> re-regulate all four of our grands because they were unplayable.  Yes,
> these are new pianos and they need to break in and yes, our humidity in
> this building is too low but I have been working with new pianos,
> especially new Baldwins, for years and I have never seen problems like
> this.
>
> Has anyone else experience this?  I would be interested in hearing from
you
> if so.

Yes. And not just with Baldwins.

Usually this problem can be traced back to either the original selection of
the wood or, more commonly, its processing and drying. Each part in the
action has some 'proper' grain orientation specification both for stability
and for strength characteristics. If these are not followed the action
will -- not might, but will -- have stability problems.

It also helps if the wood is brought to some specific moisture content,
usually about 7.0%, plus-or-minus depending on the wood species and location
of the plant, and held there long enough for the moisture content to become
reasonably constant -- i.e., reach its equilibrium moisture content -- and
stable before being processed.

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