The Soundboard bit.. S&S M

[David Love]

In all honesty, I don't have quite that much humility.  I'd like to think
there's something more to it than just not screwing it up.  Del and I have
chewed the fat extensively both via phone and email as I tried to
communicate a particular thing I was looking for and he tried to translate
that into design specs--remember there are choices to be made and different
choices yield somewhat different results.  Del clearly deserves most of the
credit for design concepts (string and belly) and, moreover, for listening
to my attempts to express tonal ideas and trying to make sense of them in a
way that could be converted to design specifics.  Together we have done a
number of pianos like this over the past three plus years.  Some have had
all the design modifications currently being used, others, like the M, I
have wanted to incorporate fewer of the design changes in order to try and
tease out certain variables and glean their effects more in isolation.   The
M, as I mentioned, had a modified scale with the addition of a transition
bridge holding wound bichords from notes 27 - 32.  I think this was a little
farther up than his original recommendation.  I used the original long
bridge, recapped it and cut it down to the modified  new length. I made a
new bass bridge removing the cantilever and moving the bridge body away from
the rim.   A small amount of plate grinding was necessary to move the bridge
as far as it needed to.  There was no bass float.  I kept the 10 monochords
in the bass although the recommendation had been to go for a few more, 13 I
think.  I wanted to keep the cut-off relatively short compared to the
typical sweeping cutoff of some of the other designs.  The cutoff joined the
straight side about half way back and connected just to the treble side of
the horn.  By Del's typical design specs, the ribs were variable radius
through the scale, laminated spruce squared off on the top with the rib at
full height for the center 1/3 and tapering gradually to the rim-no scoops.
I used the original rib locations and number of ribs (10).  The grain angle
of the panel was changed to 60 degees.  Panel thinning consisted of tapering
the entire rear of the panel starting about halfway back from 8mm down to
about 5 mm.  An additional belly brace was added in the treble side
connecting about halfway between the rim and the brace which attaches about
in the middle of the belly rail.  I added a bolt through the plate which is
screwed into the new bellyrail brace.  The plate was modified by grinding
off the counterbearing bars on the tuning pin side in the capo section and
adding brass half ovals to increase counterbearing angle and shorten the
length somewhat. 

 

Interestingly, I had originally restrung the piano over the original
soundboard and used Isaac hammers which needed a fair bit of lacquer to get
things moving.  I didn't like the result and after much consideration
decided to use this opportunity to explore some new design ideas and
executions.  After putting in the new board, the lacquered hammers (after
some voicing), while sounding ok, did not produce exactly the sound I wanted
and I couldn't quite get them there no matter what kind of voicing I tried.
I ended up removing the hammers and replacing them with Ronsen Bacon felt
hammers, unadulterated.  Interestingly, while the Bacon felt hammers are
clearly softer (and have more felt) than the Isaac hammers, they produce
more brilliance in the treble.  Go figure.  The clarity and warmth through
the rest of the piano is pretty stunning.  It produces more than ample
power.  Does it sound like a Steinway?  I can only report anecdotal evidence
but one of my oldest customers who I frequently invite to come play on
instruments I've completed and who, himself, owns two Hamburg C's commented
that the piano took him back to the NY Steinway he grew up playing.  

 

 

 

 

David Love
davidlovepianos at comcast.net
www.davidlovepianos.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Farrell
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 7:24 PM
To: Pianotech List
Subject: Re: The Soundboard bit.. S&S M

 

"A magic wood?" It very well could be. Oh, oh, oh, oh, yeah. That was an
unusual grain type. I remember it now. I picked it out because I had a
couple big boards of it and I could match everything up (aesthetically) real
nice. It was a bit unusual though (wide winter wood). I made another, more
recent, board for David for a Knabe with more "normal" Sitka Spruce - more
like what went into Ron Nossaman's S&S B that he had at Rochester. I trust
that stuff will work also.

 

(I tell ya what - when I listened to Ron Nossaman's piano being played by
that wonderful youngster from the local university after my class - I was
simply spellbound - in all honest I don't ever recall being gripped by a
piano performance (and I'm not sure whether I am talking about the pianist
or the piano) in that manner before - maybe Spock could explain it to
me.....)

 

I've got another 1,000 bd.-ft. of "magic wood" just waiting for your
order!!!!!  ;-)

 

Realistically, sure, I hope the good sound is part becuase of my work, but I
really think most of it is Del Fandrich's design work. I think the bottom
line is that I simply didn't screw up anything while building the soundboard
- nor did David when he installed the soundboard. But that's my goal in the
work I do - someone gives me a set of design specs and I do my best to build
a soundboard that accurately reflects that set of specs. If I do my job and
accurately turn a set of specs and drawings into reality - and it turns out
good - I hope it was because it was a good design and I simply did my part
of implementing that design.

 

I'm glad you liked David's piano. I wish I could hear it.......   :-(

 

Terry Farrell

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Erwinspiano at aol.com 

 

  Hi Terry

   I believe it is. A very interestingly wide grain too. What a sound.  A
Magic wood????grin

  Dale

 

Dale - I had built a Del Fandrich-designed soundboard for David this past
April. I guess I had kinda forgotten about it and never heard about the end
result. Is the one you describe below perhaps the same one?

 

Terry Farrell

Farrell Piano

 

www.farrellpiano.com <http://www.farrellpiano.com/> 

----- Original Message ----- 

SNIP

  Yes I heard David Loves pianos as well.  His M is by far a remarkable
sounding instrument.  It touts all the best tonal features of the original
Steinway scale. It was by far one of the clearest most powerful & musical
M's  I have encountered.  The treble with no weaks spots  floats on a sea of
sustain.  & the bass was huge. Being that I haven't heard other Ms do this
in 35 years  I can only draw one conclusion.  It's the design. 

  His A also similarly had a treble very much like the Overs quality of
sound also floating on a sea of sustain.  Rarely have I heard sustain this
strong in the trebles in C.C. boards & but certainly not the clarity and
focus this one had.  Again it has to be design. 

  SNIP

  Dale Erwin

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20061211/54129202/attachment.html