Steinway legless bridge

[Isaac OLEG]

Hello everyone,

Back to my city after a bit of travel, i see those comments on the
bridge of the Steinway mod C(hamburg) .

I recall that there is a dogleg at the plate on this model, and that
the strike line is clearly off by 5 mm in that before last section.

So the idea about the strings being longer in the treble side is
probably false.

I can't find plate pictures showing the change in strike line and
plate, but I recall that I measured the strings and they where
progressing evenly around the plate strut.

I also have tried to follow a rhetorical strike line , because of some
advice given to me by a piano designer, and the tone was not better,
so I had to come back to the original strike line of the model.

Unable to give a better analysis at this moment, what I know actually
is that strike lines and hammer rake are highly variable on Hamburg
Steinways, I work on a model B actually that have 3 different strike
lines in the treble, and the hammers are 90° to the shanks.
On others a 91° rake have been noticed.

I also have been said that Steinway does not follow the magic line
rule for the whippen heel contact, but I have no further info yet (on
what model, ? as a generality, for what reason ?)

I am happy to see that many are still there , here most of my
colleagues and friends are gone on vacation.

Best to all.

Isaac OLEG



-----Message d'origine-----
De : pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]De la
part de Richard Brekne
Envoyé : lundi 2 août 2004 11:25
À : Pianotech
Objet : Re: Steinway legless bridge


Ron Nossaman wrote:

>
>> As far as bias notching's effect on tuning, it doesn't slow me
down.
>
>
> Me either. Nor do I particularly worry about ceiling fans,
> dishwashers, lawn mowers, or false beats anymore. As is repeatedly
> pointed out to me when I start talking about what I consider to be
> design improvements, we field techs have to work with what we have
to
> work with when we're there working with it, and make the best of
what
> we're sitting in front of. I do the same thing.

Well of course you do, except when you simply cant deal with a
situation.  Reality and the  pondering of what might be improved upon
are two different things, and that second goes way beyond design
improvements. We start climbing into that arena the second we start
wanting to do simple improvements... rebushing, hammer changes.. jerky
pins...

> Given the chance to (by my criteria) correct it with a rebuild,
> however, I don't see any rational justification for leaving it in
there.

And thats exactly where the taste of the soup gets too salty for some,
and not salty enough for others. Rationalality, numbers and formulars,
mathmatical modelings, and the rest just dont fit at least half of
what
can be loosely called the musical ear. Ok.. for some it does, and for
others it doesnt... to some more or less degree. Whats noise for some
is
sweet music to others... usually to at least as many others.

Point being, any definition of what a <<correct>> rebuild is simply
must
run into that wall, and fall short at that exact moment. Or you could
turn the whole concept of rationality a bit sideways and say its
rational to build and sell what the greatest number of customers seem
to
want.  Comercialism verses some sense of idealism to begin with, with
the latter declaring itself superior in all regards.  That kind of
thing
is bound to be both very interesting... and provocative... big time.
No
small wonder that tempers flare from time to time.

That said... it seems in the case of biased notching (as I guess its
called)  history has made its judgjement for the most part.....
still..
when it comes down to it... if some body really likes the sound that
results in... who are we to --criticize-- them for that, or for
building
them that way ?

>
> Ron N
>
Cheers
RicB
_______________________________________________
pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives