Scaling problem

[Joseph Garrett]

Ron,
Initially, when I first bumped into the problem, with the first GH1, I was
told, by Yamaha, that the "G" stands for grand and the "H" stands for home.
The original design was INTENDED for those buyers who want a grand in their
home and don't play! That's paraphased, but the intention no the less. The
whole problem, as I see it, is that the piano is so inexpensive that
musicians picked up on it and expected it to be an adequate instrument just
because it's a grand. The original one had no bracing between the rim and
the belly rail. Needless to say, it was squirlier than hell! They've since
added a brace, but for some darned reason they chose not to fix the scale.
My opinion is that it's a good place to use up their rejects and seconds.
Regards,
Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Nossaman" <RNossaman@KSCABLE.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Scaling problem


>
> >
> >     I've had some partial success with carefully doping the hammers, and
> > voicing the bass down, plus leveling strings, straightening termination
> > points etc., but not to any totally satisfactory result.
> >     Got any good advise? I'm all ears.
> >
> >     Or is it just poor design?
> >
> >
> > Kevin E. Ramsey
> > <mailto:ramsey@extremezone.com>ramsey@extremezone.com
>
>
>
> Kevin,
> I'm a long way from being a scaling sage, but I'll vote poor design with
Joe.
> The only claims I've heard for improving the problem with voicing are from
> Roger Jolly, but he's just blowing steam. Sorry Roger, couldn't help
myself.
> <G> A couple of years ago, tuning a GH1B for a dealer, I was tired enough
of
> the lousy low tenor that I took a little extra time and got some
measurements
> from the piano to check them out on my scaling spreadsheet. I measured
core,
> wrap, and speaking length of notes 24-31, with the break being at 26/27. I
> found the original break% of #26 at 54%, and #27 at 21%. Tension,
> inharmonicity, and impedance were just about that smooth across the break
too.
> I played around with the scaling numbers at the transition and ended up
with a
> reasonable (not good, but reasonable) break with the original speaking
lengths.
> I substituted four bichord unisons in the low tenor and it looks like it
would
> help. A break% of 54 at #26, and 45% at #27, with a smoother tension,
> impedance, and inharmonicity curve would about have to help some. While I
agree
> with Ron O that this is a far less than ideal configuration, I was curious
to
> see how close I could come aurally. Unfortunately, I don't have a GH1B to
try
> it out on, so I can't say for sure what the results would be. My
impression was
> that this can't be really fixed with the original bridges, only made less
bad -
> and that with more modifications than just changing some strings. Starting
at
> the drawing board, I'd want to put the break at #31 or #32 in the first
place
> in a piano this size, but for some reason Yamaha chose a lower point in
the
> scale. I didn't see anything particularly obvious to make me suspect
soundboard
> problems. It does seem to be the scale that's the primary problem.
>
> Now what I want to know, given the obvious wretched sound of these things
> across the break, where did this scale design come from in the first
place? I
> don't see how it could have been "designed" this way and been allowed out
the
> door after hearing the results. Who does Yamaha's scaling, and why can't
they
> fix this themselves?
>
> I don't buy the story that the GH has to sound bad to sell the C at the
higher
> price. If it was supposed to sound lousy, they wouldn't be contracting
these
> scaling fixes from independent techs.
>
>
> Ron N