----- Original Message ----- From: "John Delacour" <JD@Pianomaker.co.uk> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: September 20, 2001 3:41 PM Subject: Re: 1 string, 2 strings, 3 strings or more > Are most of these complaints > about American-made Steinways or would you make no distinction on this > question? We don't see a lot of Hamburg Steinways, but the complaints relative to scaling apply to both. > > >...Still, the piano continues to sell...why? I can only speculate. [....] > >It is certainly one of the most attractive pianos of its size ever built > >(it has a Visual Bulk Factor of just 1.1) [....] I'd say that most of its > >success is attributable to its wonderful appearance and its successful > >marketing. > > Precisely what sold the Bechstein B 6'8" in its day! What is Visual Bulk > Factor? If it's what I'm guessing, isn't the Steinway Model A even lower? The VBF is something I made up for the book I'm gradually writing. It is a way to put a number on how bulky a piano looks. I've copied the pertinent section from the draft of the book and have pasted it in below for those who are interested. Yes, the Steinway Long A (the A-3) is quite low--a very attractive piano. > > >>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? > > > >Yes. How else do you explain the massive amounts of lacquer and other > >herculean attempts to harden and 'brighten'.... > > OK, you've half persuaded me, though the story of Steinway's hammers in the > past 20 years is a very sad one. I use only Japanese hammers now. We have found that when the scale and the soundboard are working together we are able to use quite soft hammers--such as those made by Steinway, Ronsen and Isaacs--with excellent results and with virtually no lacquer in the treble. Even these will generally require some needling through the tenor and (sometimes) the bass and upper tenor. We couldn't possibly use Japanese or German hammers. At least not as they are sold in the U.S. > > >Tuning stability is a whole other issue, having less to do with the scaling > >and more to do with the structural design and the soundboard/rib design. > > I was thinking of Wolfenden's assertion that below a certain relative > tension strings do become susceptible to temperature variations but that > above a certain percentage strain this is virtually negligible -- which I > have no reason to doubt. I must admit that the _only_ reason I advocate > the shorter extreme treble is the doubtful quality of modern wire, and I > increase the tension going down as soon as possible, not to influence the > whole scale as you say it does in the B. Probably past experience with > fluctuating wire quality has made me cautious. Actually, I was saying--or at least intended to be saying--it does with a log scale. For me, at least, that is the starting point. And, as I said earlier, I've not had any trouble with wire breakage with C-88 set at 54 mm. Del Delwin D Fandrich Piano Designer & Builder Hoquiam, Washington USA E.mail: pianobuilders@olynet.com Web Site: www.pianobuilders.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- Small piano style-the Visual Bulk Factor (Draft copy) (C) Copyright 2001 Delwin D Fandrich Today's consumer wants a short piano that is aesthetically well balanced. This means that some effort must be made to reduce the overall visual bulk of the instrument. To help illustrate the visual bulk of a piano I have created a rating system called the Visual Bulk Factor (VBF). A piano's VBF is defined as: VBF = lr x wr x dr x k where, lr = rim length wr = rim width dr = rim depth k = shape factor (SF), a number between 1 and 4 based on the physical shape of the piano's rim. The SF is based on two basic criteria: the length of the treble rim arm between the front of the piano and the start of the curve (shortest is a 1, longest is a 2) and the shape and width of the tail (narrow and attractively squared-off is a 1, wide and round is a 2). The SF is the product of these two numbers. Note: all measurements are in meters. The Vant piano would have a shape factor of about 2.25 since the treble arm is relatively long (I would give it at least a 1.5) and the tail, although not overly wide, is quite round (another 1.5). To achieve a low VBF, the modern small piano should be as narrow as is practical. It should also have a narrow and slightly squared-off tail section and the treble arm should be as short as practical. The F-150 is designed this way. While its length is the same as the Vant design, it will be only 1372 mm (» 54.0") wide across the outside of the front rim arms-by comparison the Vant design measures 1422 mm (56.0"). (Note that in both cases the keybed will extend slightly beyond the rim arms and the lid will overhang both.) Now, the difference of 50 mm (» 2.0") may not seem like much across the width of the piano-and it's not in absolute terms-but visually it 's quite a lot with a piano this short. Especially if we also reduce the height of the rim, shorten up the treble arm and give the rim a cleaner, more elegant, shape as I have done with the F-150. Its rim height is only 250 mm (» 9.8"), its treble arm is as short as it is practical (giving it a rating of 1.0) to make it and its tail is relatively narrow and is relatively squared-off (let's give it a rating of 1.5, not perfect but this is a very short piano). So, using this admittedly arbitrary rating the Vant piano has a VBF of 1.44 (1.50 ´ 1.47 ´ 0.29 ´ 2.25 = 1.44) while the F150 will have a VBF of only 0.79 (1.50 ´ 1.40 ´ 0.25 ´ 1.5 = 0.79). Any piano with a VBF in the neighborhood of 1.00 or below is going to look reasonably trim and well balanced regardless of its overall length. And notice that even longer pianos don't have to look visually bulky. For comparison consider three mid-sized pianos currently on the market: The Steinway Model B has long been considered one of the most attractive of modern pianos. With a length of 2.1 m, a width of 1.42 m, a rim height of .25 m and a k of 2.0-the tail of this piano is quite elegant (a 1.0) but the treble rim arm is some longer than necessary (a 1.5), it has a VBF of just 1.1. The Walter Model 190 (one of my own designs) has a length of 1.9 m, a width of 1.4 m, a rim height of 0.26 m and a k of 1.25 (the treble rim arm is only slightly longer than optimum) for a VBF of just 0.86. A very attractive piano. My own new 200 cm (» 6' 7") grand piano design will have a VBF of just 0.7. Its length will be 2.0 m, its width 1.4 m, its rim height 0.25 and I'll give it a k of 1.0 (its tail section is quite narrow and nicely squared-off and its treble arm is as short as it can be consistent with the length of the piano). By comparison, a 1920 Mason & Hamlin Model BB with a length of 2.13 m, a width of 1.47 m, a rim height of 0.29 m and a SF of 4.0-it has a very wide and rounded tail section (2.0) and a very long treble arm (another 2.0)-for a VBF of 3.63. A wonderful piano in many ways, but also a large and bulky looking piano. It takes a very large room or hall to visually accommodate a piano of this size and shape while a piano like the Steinway Model B-while only 30 mm (» 1.2") shorter and ___ mm (» ___") narrower will not visually dominate a much smaller room because of its much more elegant shape. Even though most experienced pianists and piano technicians generally acknowledge the superior performance of the M&H Model BB, it has struggled for survival while the S&S Model B has consistently sold well. Unfortunately, nearly all modern pianos have a bulk factor considerably above 1.0. And they look it. With few exceptions the modern small piano is wider and deeper than it needs to be by a considerable amount and it has a shape that adds to its visual bulk. And folks do notice. Some of the most loved small pianos ever built are the old Chickering Quarter-grand and its immediate successors built by the Aeolian company. The experienced technician reading this will quickly object, pointing out that none of these pianos had particularly good performance and the true QuarterGrand was a nightmare to service. But it wasn't their performance that endeared these pianos to their owners-they were never much praised for their outstanding acoustical or action performance-it was their style. These were not just short pianos, they were also quite narrow. Even though their rims were quite deep, they still had an attractive, diminutive shape. While it would be a serious mistake to bring back Chickering's infamous brass action with its flared action configuration and its notorious servicing difficulties, the designers of these pianos certainly exhibited a sense of style that is largely missing in today's piano industry. And that style sold a lot of pianos despite their numerous technical problems and performance limitations. Much more effort needs to go into reducing the small pianos physical and aesthetic bulk. And, before the reader cries out in dismay, "the piano is not just a piece of furniture, before aesthetics must come performance," rest assured; good aesthetics and good acoustics are eminently compatible.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC