At 13:07 19/09/01 -0700, Delwin D Fandrich wrote:
>To pick just one example the S&S B scale is, in my opinion, an obsolete
>scale. C-88 varies between 47 mm and 49.5 mm which is some short by today's
>standards. The bass/tenor break (at E-20/F-21) falls to low in the scale for
>a piano of this size resulting in either an excessively low string tension
>(approx. 120 lbs, depending on the bridge location) or excessively large
>diameter strings to keep the string tension in line with the higher scaling
>(it would require a 0.053" string to keep tensions in the mid-160 range).
I agree. The B scale is extraordinary and yet of all models it is the B
that gets musicians raving. The bass scale that results from this
arrangement is also very unusual. The string scaling has been modified
slightly over the last 120 years and it certainly follows a certain
rationale, the percentage strain on the core wire being remarkably level
almost down to the bottom, but owing to the too low location of the break,
the tension falls off towards note 20 to a very unusual level. To have
only 10 singles even on a piano of this length is more than obsolete - it's
archaic, and yet 10 was the magic number which had to work for the
Vertgrand, the B, the A the 0 (nought, not oh) etc. I'm sure this would
have changed soon if Theodore had stayed around. You mentioned shifting
the Bechstein top single from 12 to 13 (presumably on a 6'6" or 6'8" grand)
and this is where I would put it too. From a string-making standpoint I
like to see a scale that allows the spinning of the thickest bichord with
0.9 mm copper. There is both a rational and a practical basis for this
preference, though it might sound like a fad. As a rule I whip the bottom
ends of all the bichords after the fashion of Erard and Bechstein. I also
bring the winding as close as possible to the soundboard bridge. If I'm
making Steinway strings I flatten the whipping after the former Steinway
fashion (they're too lazy to do it any more), though more for authenticity
than for any tonal advantage over the spiral whipping.
All my discriminating customers agree that there is a marked improvement in
the clarity of the sound due to the whipping. I would say unscientifically
that it "improves the attack" and "cleans up the harmonic content". Erard
may not have had this end in view when he started doing it (it was about
the time when flattening took over from filing and might have been a
security measure) but the effect was obviously noticed and the practice
introduced and continued by Steinway, Bechstein and numerous German makers.
Now if I whip 1.30 mm copper AND bring the winding close to the bridge,
there is a danger the winding will touch the notch, so there's a practical
reason I like to stop at 0.9mm. The more important reasons are tonal -- in
a word, thick bichords bark like a tuba (very noticeable on VERY old grands
with only five or six singles) and a smooth transition to the singles is
impossible. Another Steinway classic is the Model K scale with only 10
singles. The top single is originally spun on an 18 core and honks like
mad. To get any sort of proper sound out of it, it needs to be spun on a
22 core.
> > at 4.8 - 5.0 mm. the tension to rise with the gauges to an average 165-70
> > lbs for the remainder of the steel scale.
>
>I expect you mean cm in the above. And I disagree. Many, if not most, modern
>pianos are running upwards of 52 mm at C-88. Many are in the 54 to 56 mm
>range with no long-term undesirable side effects. My own standard is C-88 =
>54 mm.
To give 165 lb. on a 13 wire. Well, that's not at all unreasonable, I
agree, and of course I come across pianos with 60-62 mm. whose strings
haven't YET snapped, though luckily the English makers responsible for them
have -- the last factory I was called in to (recently defunct) had no idea
even what they intended the length to be ("give or take an eighth").
But the question is, will C88 at 50 mm. and 140 lb. sound any worse or
noticeably weaker or be significantly more liable to pitch alteration? Put
another way, do tuners have problems with the top treble of Steinway Model
Bs in concert halls? What I'm questioning, of course, is the pursuit of
equal tension as an indisputable good. I was brought up from infancy with
a 1905 Lipp 5'9" grand which simply would not go out of tune. Year after
year the tuner would come and leave complaining there was nothing to
do! Years later I analysed the scale of this piano and discovered it had
an extraordinarily even scale with tensions about 160 lb. in the steel, 14
singles running from 220 to 300 lb. and 14 bichords at about 200 lbs, in
brief it is an excellent model in very many ways. Now tuners I speak to
agree that the Lipp stands like a rock, but if there is one piano they
mention in the same class for stability, it's the Blüthner Style 7, which
is scaled according to quite different criteria with no semblance of equal
tension, 18 or 20 notes in a run strung with one gauge etc. etc.. in short
what appears to be an empiricist's dream. The only things the two pianos
have in common is good half-round top bearings and a firm pin (the Blüthner
has an open plank covered with a thin brass plate and the Lipp has a bushed
plate).
> > As to the lowering of tension at
> > the other end of the long bridge, you seem to be saying this is a sign of
> > obsolete scaling and that seems to mean that most modern 6' grands have
> > obsolete scaling,
>
>Yes. That is a good summary of what I am saying.
Right. Now that is clear I tend to a similar view
>Why do you say this. I designed the Walter 190 grand with a 27 note bass
>section. When properly built the bass/tenor transition is essentially
>transparant. Our own 122 vertical piano has a 32 note bass section and
>several roomfulls of piano technicians could not reliably pick out the
>bass/tenor transition.
Yes, those numbers sound about right to me.
JD
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC