Bass bridge question

[Overs Pianos]

Del wrote;

>(about flaring the bass string scale at the bass bridge) . . . . . . 
>Beyond the minimum required for string clearance, however, I don't 
>know why
>some designers have taken the idea to such extremes. I have long suspected
>that it was originally associated with the notion that the sound waves
>radiated directly from the soundboard and if they could be spread over a
>larger area there would be more sound.

I suspect similarly - but more wood does not necessarily translate 
into a better sounding instrument.

>  I'm not aware of anything that has
>ever been written about the subject specifically, however. That's just from
>reading between a lot of lines.

Samuel Wolfenden wrote about the idea of designing scales with 
increased spacing between adjacent notes in the strike scale. He also 
constructed prototype instruments to investigate it, concluding that 
there was no benefit. I have long held the view that the same would 
apply to unnecessary flare in the bass scale at the bass bridge also.

One possible benefit might be had where a piano exhibited a lower 
than desirable impedance on the bass bridge at the cross. A greater 
flare here would place the end of the bass bridge closer to the rim 
on the bent side, eg. the Welmar 6'0" grand suffers from a poor 
impedance match at the cross-over, as do some of the Boston grands, 
with a very wide belly across the back end. Flaring the bridge layout 
would place note C#29 (the last note in the bass in the case of the 
Welmar) closer to the rim, thereby raising the 'board impedance to a 
more acceptable level. Of course, a more sensible solution might be 
to redesign the piano with a narrower belly at the bass end. The 
instrument might be less costly in materials, yet better in 
performance.

Ron O
-- 

_________________________

Website:  http://www.overspianos.com.au
Email:      mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au
_________________________