Fw: Scaling problem/ And downbearing problems GH-1

[Erwinpiano]

  Joe

    It's not just the string scaling but also a downbearing problem.I've had
two clients with instability problems so great that I looked elsewhere and
found that the downbearing was both negative, positive and non- existent in
the same piano.  Yamaha was quick to replace these at my request once the
problem was isolated. Of course I have always found Yamaha to be more than
helpful and timely in these matters.  In fact , I determined the problem on
one of these on the very last week(day) of it's ten year warranty and it was
a  replaced with an upgraded G-1 model plus a bit of cash from the client
and it was a done deal within weeks. (they didn't ask for a second opinion
either) The new one is in the same location as the old and the tuning
stability is like a rock.

    Thanks again to Yamaha for Corp. integrity and demonstrating true public
relations!

    Dale Erwin


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Garrett" <joegarrett@earthlink.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: Scaling problem


> 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
>