While it does end up being about what we are hearing, there are some theoretical issues that are worth addressing. In the case of wholesale changes to the overall scale on a Steinway (as you suggest), I would be concerned that the increase in tensions could be problematic. Not only might it increase the total load putting quite a bit of additional stress on the plate, a significant increase in overall string tension on the original board would tend to dis-integrate the match between string scale, soundboard design and hammer density/mass/resilience. Not a new idea, as is nicely illustrated in the recent book edited by Del Fandrich “Tone Building”, but one that seems to have been lost. Recent trends by some scalers to increase tension in order to boost power illustrates this nicely (if you’ve heard one). Increases in overall tension on the existing soundboard (which itself has likely lost some of it’s own spring tension) can create an imbalance that, while might be compensated for by reduced bearing and reduced hammer mass and/or density, would probably create other tonal problems. Changing scales to smooth out irregularities is one thing. Wholesale changes in tension, in my view, need to be accompanied by matching changes in soundboard design and hammer selection and the resulting piano will be quite different from the original not matter what you do. While there is clearly some tolerance this way or that way, there does seem to be the need to keep things reasonably integrated: high tension, stiffer assembly, denser hammer; or low tension, lighter assembly, softer hammer. A random shuffling of the deck seems to be asking for trouble. 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 Aras Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:13 AM To: Pianotech List Subject: SV: RE: Re: Steinway B Scale Conversion David, In this particular piano the whole scale were changed. If I should smooth out just the bass/tenor part and keep the steel strings as they are, I would change the whole bass in another way. Anyway, it is not easy to talk about this. It all ends up in what we are hearing. If those who are into this scale posting were gathered around some grands we could start talking about what we find good or bad. David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net> skrev: The other issue is that the changes made, that we were talking about originally, were to blend the bass better with the tenor. That actually required a slight lowering of the tensions. Whether this would break strings or not (not to mention the increased load on the plate) it seems that problem of blending would be exacerbated. With such high tensions, I also wonder what would happen to the balance of partials in this section. It would seem that it would produce an even more weakened fundamental and quite powerful upper partials—even more so than the original. Not something I would aim for personally. 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 Aras Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 7:25 AM To: Pianotech List Subject: SV: Re: Steinway B Scale Conversion OK, so here are the actual tensions in % from the breaking points in the rescaled B starting from A0 > A2 73, 75, 76, 76, 76, 75, 75, 76, 64, 66, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 76, 78, 77, 76, 58, 63, 70, 65, 70. And the % from the original B. Starting from A0 > E2 37, 40, 45, 47, 55, 53, 54, 56, 49, 49, 47, 48, 47, 47, 48, 48, 48, 48, 46, 47. And here are the tensions in Newton/string: 1533, 1521, 1476, 1425, 1970, 1290, 1301, 1309, 902, 926, 947, 949, 965, 967, 964, 968, 970, 947, 938, 925, 922, 926, 932, 952, 937. And tensions in Newton/string original: 1156, 1107, 1088, 1139, 1160, 1128, 1140, 1066, 734, 742, 649, 659, 657, 623, 637, 638, 609, 604, 552, 570. As I wrote, no strings have been broken after more than 10 years of hard playing. John Delacour <JD at pianomaker.co.uk> skrev: At 5:02 pm -0500 2/4/07, Ron Nossaman wrote: >>Let others calculate the tension of that scale and see who they >>think has the more reason. > >I certainly wouldn't spec a scale like this, but... > >>The lengths for the 20 notes on the bass bridge are printed below. >>When I see a bass scale that requires the wire for the greater part >>of the scale to operate at over 80% of the actual breaking strain, >>as high as 86% for one note, I know I'm looking at a recipe for >>disaster. > >I show C-1 at 68% and 377lbs as the highest. What are you using to >determine these percentages? In practice a No. 21 core with covers 70 and 170 will end up at roughly 5.54 mm depending on who makes the string and how good a day he's having. That gives a tension of roughly 351 lbs. I have the breaking strain of mwg 21 as 405 lbs. so that gives 87%. Paulello has 414 lbs as the breaking strain of his No. 21 'M' (modern) wire, so very close to the figure I have always used. Juan Más Cabré gives (245 kg) 540 lbs for No. 21 "modern wire" and 470 lbs for his own, neither of which figures I find in the least credible. It is clear from this discrepancy and from a recent difference in our figures in another thread that you have a list of breaking strains considerably higher than mine, which I obtained from the manufacturer many years ago and which have served well for the bass string manufactory for as long. I never intentionally make a bass string that exceeds 70% of the breaking strain as per my list. Since I am human I occasionally punch in the wrong length or something and inadvertently send out a string (or even, most memorably just before last Christmas, a whole set) that is over-tensioned. My pocket and my serenity begin to suffer quite soon after as the customer's new strings begin to go bang. I am interested to know where you got your list of breaking strains which differs so greatly from mine and Paulello's. Please send me it off list and let me know its origin. Yours seems to be similar to Más Cabré's, which, as I have said, I do not regard as serious. With very few exceptions among the hundreds of calculated bass scales I have, piano makers keep within the limits I have stated and models that exceed them have problems with breakages, for example the Bösendorfer I mentioned earlier. Schiedmayer & Soehne and Grotrian are two makers a few of whose models have grossly exceeded the limits. One string I always recognise when it comes in the post for replacement -- I have lost count of the number of these I have replaced with scaled down versions --is note 13 on the Blüthner 6'3" style 6/7. The original string is 126.1 cm. long and has a No. 19 core with an overall diameter of 3.38 mm. That gives a tension of roughly 280 lbs. and requires the core to be at 82% of breaking strain. This string (and the one below) will _always_ break even though these Poehlmann wire used was far superior to what we have now. I should add that a greater margin is required for covered strings than for plain wire owing to the eye. I know it is possible to exceed the 70% limit for plain wire strings and the extreme treble of many pianos does so, not to speak of several "long scales" I could think of, Schiedmayer again being a foul offender. JD _____ Stava rätt! Stava lätt! Yahoo! Mails stavkontroll tar hand om tryckfelen och mycket mer! Få den på http://se.mail.yahoo.com _____ Stava rätt! Stava lätt! Yahoo! Mails stavkontroll tar hand om tryckfelen och mycket mer! Få den på http://se.mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20070403/6c12d644/attachment.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC