[pianotech] Modified L Scale with 5 note transition

[David Love]

I do like that bass bridge modification, reducing mass and creating some
flexibility in the bridge itself to boot.  

On your other point from a previous post, I agree with you, this making a
living stuff is really over rated.   

David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com


-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Ron Nossaman
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:39 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Modified L Scale with 5 note transition

David Love wrote:
> Also, based on your chart and having seen previous iterations of your 
> work my transitions look a bit different than yours.  Attached are 
> some photos of some modified bridges with transition.  One is a B the
other one is an L.
> I'm creating a small modification on these in order to accommodate a 
> transition that doesn't play with the strike point that much and 
> involves adding less "stuff" at the end of the long bridge.  Both use 
> the end segment of the original bridge (why waste) cut and added back 
> as the transition.  On the L pictured the original bass bridge is used 
> but the cantilever is shortened to give a bit more backscale length.  
> The B has 7 notes on the transition, the L has 5.  It does allow for 
> getting a smoother transition with tension and Z while having to make 
> only a small compromise in the inharmonicity through the transition
section.
> 
> David Love

I don't worry that much about the strike point that low in the scale. It
does affect tone quality, but I'm not sure where the trade off is. I haven't
found it to be problematic. There's still plenty to learn, and gobs of
variables. I'd love to get to do five in a row of the same model of
something, so I could get some side by side comparisons without having to
rely so much on faulty two or eight year old memory to try incremental
changes. Answers could come a lot faster if so much time wasn't spent making
a living.


>   My first modified is much more like this and it certainly looks 
> better on paper but it represents a bit of a drop off from the 
> original bi-chord tensions in the bass and I go back and forth about 
> how to treat that section.  The original does jump up a bit too much 
> for me and makes the tenor bass break awkward.  Adding the transition 
> certainly helps.  However, dropping that bichord section down too low 
> could also make the bass sound a slightly weak to some who are used to
something different.  How do you think
> about that.   
> 
> David Love

I didn't find it to be a problem, but going up a thousandth in core size if
necessary and increasing wrap to add another 10lbs per string wouldn't be a
problem either. I just tried it, and don't see why it wouldn't work. I
personally find the too typical booming upper bass much more objectionable
than one that more nearly matches volume level with the low tenor. 
There should be very little hammer voicing necessary to get the transition
under control. And part of that volume control is soundboard assembly
stiffness at the bridge ends.

Ron N