This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Dear list, Thanks, all, for your thoughtful suggestions and leads! It's nearly unanimous that I need the experience of a master in order to = rescale my piano and tweak it to its optimal performance. I do agree = that there is a lot of magic to anything acoustic, especially anything = as complicated as a piano. Eventually I will follow this advice, but my = immediate goal is to restore the piano to functionality (including with = factory spec scaling), to allow myself and the piano time to grow = together, and to allow the piano time to settle in (e.g. to the new = tensions on the treble end of its sounding board). Changing a string = diameter here or there is a job that can be done later. The good news about the wires is that they are not ALL .041" dia. = Perhaps only 1/2 to 2/3 of it is this diameter -- yes, all the way from = 21 through 88. I has falsely assumed that the diameters would follow a = progression of SOME sort and would not simply be random. Silly me! = Live and learn. Anyway, after measuring seemingly every wire in the = tenor/treble (not to mention destroying my last tuning job <grrrr>) and = after identifying a number of wires that seem to be factory originals -- = perfect coils on the ends of very rusty wires, trimmed perfectly to = length -- I was able to reconstruct most of the piano's scale. Much of = this was based on the assumption that a wire being shared between notes = would indicate the same diameters being used for the other two wires on = those two notes (safe assumption???). As for the replacement wires, = some were carefully bent and placed, and others were strung quite = sloppily. My guesses for the correct diameters on the completely = rewired notes are based on the wires that are oldest and most = competently installed. I also assumed that the span inbetween two = original wires of the same diameter was occupied by wires of the same = diameter. Anyway, I ended up with the following: Note Dia 21-28 .045 original 29-36 .043 original 37-44 .041 original 45-51 .040 original 52-58 .0385 original 59/60 .0375 (.0375, .036, .037 used) 61/62 .035 (.035, .034, .0375 used) 63/64 .034 (.034, .0345, .034 used) 65/66 .0325 (.0325, .036, .0375 used) 67/68 .036 (.036, .036, .034 used) 69/70 .035 (.035, .037, .0375 used) 71/72 .035 (.035, .036, .037 used) 73/74 .036 original 75/76 no competent replacements -- .041 only 77/78 .030 probably original (and two newer .041s) 79/80 .030 probably original (and two newer .041s) 81-86 no competent replacements -- mostly .041 87/88 .030 probably original (and two newer .041s) More good news: Someone on this list responded privately to let me know = he has access to another 9' Wissner (a 1939 -- only 6 yr different) that = is apparently all original (and predicably worn out). Hopefully he can = get some wire dia measurements for me to help me fill out the rest of = this scaling pattern. (Thanks!!) Whatever data can't be filled in from = measurements on that Wissner can be filled in from the various resources = that have been offered/recommended on this list. This will give me a = good starting point, and I can work from there. Even more good news -- As might be predicted, the notes in the treble = that sound REALLY awful and have very little sustain are the ones with = gross diametric differences (seemingly the greatest predictor) and with = otherwise oversized wires (second best predictor). I also discovered a = lot of surface irregularities on the capo bar which probably account for = ringing in some of the strings. (It was very badly resurfaced = apparently in the last rebuild, and the too-tight .041 wires probably = contributed to its grooving.) Anyway, I think the piano will sound = markedly better once I have a chance to replace the strings with new = ones of reasonable/original diameter, clean up the bearing points, = resurface the capo bar, etc. I'm very excited to have identified these = problems. :) Anyway, I really appreciate all the advice everyone has given me. I = think I'm off to a good start. One more question, though, that might relate more to hammers = placement/design than to stringing, per se -- I'm perplexed by the = curvature of the bearing points along the capo bar, as compared to the = evenness of the bridge pins. The result is that the unisons are of = differing lengths AND that a hammer oriented parallel to the strings = will strike the unisons at different proportional distances along their = speaking lengths, resulting in a phasing difference in the vibrations of = the three strings. Isn't this a rather odd aspect of piano design, = especially in a finicky area such as the treble? Wouldn't it make sense = to cut hammers on a slight bias, so that their "perpendicular" surfaces = follow e.g. 7/8 the curvature of the capo bar, thus resulting in the = same phasing of the initial impulse with respect to the unisons' = speaking length? According to my measurements on the Wissner, the = required bias would be approx. 85 deg at (i.e. 5 deg variance from = right-angle cut) at note 52, graduating to 92 deg at note 88. Does = anyone ever do this, and if so, what are the results? .... or am I = simply obsessing over minutiae. I would appreciate any commentary. Thanks, all! Peace, Sarah ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/af/85/83/49/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC