Speaking of Steinway grand sizes

[Richard Brekne]

Hi JD.

The total diameter column was not part of the published data.  I just 
added the two together thinking for some reason thats what you do.  Not 
knowing much about how bass strings are made I suppose it was an 
understandable if silly mistake.  The other three columns are published 
in the Steinway Service Manual by Max Matthias.  Now that you mention 
it... :)... I did react to the thickness of the lowest notes and 
wondered if I was doing something wrong.

I would be interested to know how you figure the real end diameter for a 
given wire and a given wrap size.

Cheers
RicB


    Yuk!

    I attach a print-out of the results such a scale as this would give.
    As you see the lengths are, for practical purposes, the same as the
    'O' and the scale is as crazy if not more so.  Whoever published
    those dimensions had no idea how strings are made, since the total
    diameters given are the sum of the core and twice the diameter of the
    copper.  This is nonsense, since the copper reduces considerably in
    diameter as it is wound onto the steel; for example they say that the
    top single, with 160 copper on a 20 steel will end up as 4.325mm,
    whereas it will in fact end up being more like 4.08mm.  This is a
    huge difference.  I can see no sense in their scale at all and truly
    it is rare to find such a _very_ badly designed scale.

    I attach also a print-out of a scale that I would use for this piano.

    I have no objection to making the strings either :-)

    JD