Hi Stéphane The origional scale, had C5 (52) at 307 mm and there was 0.925 wire on it. I have no idea whether the wire was original, but I have the entire data set if anyone is interested. The scale I designed for this put that same note at 322 mm and uses 0.85 pure sound wire. I am considering trying modern wire to hear what difference this makes. My thinking has always been that by 1850 the major players MUST have been narrowing in on the modern sound. The developing piano industry was then about 150 years old, there over a hundred builders by the mid 1850's and we are some 30 odd years away from Steinway getting its sound fairly well rooted. As for adding stiffness at the cross over area between the bass and tenor bridge. If you will remember there was a connector rib between rib 1 and 2 and the bass bridge more or less goes right in between these two ribs. I've been experimenting around with 2-3 medium strength springs mounted in various ways at various spots to see what effect this has on the overall sound of the piano. I finally ended up with a line that pretty much goes right between rib one and two and follows very closely the bass bridge line. One right in the middle of the bass bridge and one just under the treble end of the bass bridge just about half way back to the bass end of the tenor bridge. They are mounted on a piece of rib material that stretches from the bent side rim to the long side... more or less simulating an extra rib. Its my intention to install an extra rib that makes this permanent. There is room to maneuver for such a retro install, but it will be <<fun>> to be sure. I'm thinking of first trying a dry run with a slightly crowned rib that only contacts the SB in three places (with 5 mm thick slates) and see how that goes. The present position of the extra support has opened the sound significantly, increased sustain and fullness from around F4 downwards. There was no discernible loss of power... if anything the opposite seemed to be the case. As to you final questions... the tenor side of the SB tail is floating with a big piece of extra wood on the upper and lower sides of the panel. Obviously a mass scheme. The board is in many regards a copy of the original.. Rib structure is exactly the same, some fanning yes, tapering from belly rail to tail the same 9 mm to 4 mm. I'm attaching the picture of the backside of the original board again so you can see how it looked. Cheers RicB Hello Ric. Nice to hear all this. Just one thought. It is my understanding that the mid 19th century new wave of builders (Blüthner, Bechstein and Steinway) were aiming for a new kind of piano based on the recently available (in industrial quantities) English steel, meaning louder instruments thanks to heavier stringing patterns. Pleyel factory did the same at the same time (exactly the time Pleyel (son) himself died and passed the commands to Wolff, who initiated the new stringing patterns). It is useful to compare C5 length and thickness in pianos of that period to get a hint about the overall stringing scheme. Here are some examples from my experience : For the note C5, Pleyel 1840 has 295 mm length and 0.850 mm thickness (beware, this is not the English steel yet, it is that easily bendable iron wire) Pleyel 1864 has 309 mm length and 0.875 mm thickness (this is Firminy wire, very close to the modern Röslau wire) Pleyel 1895 has 355 mm length and 0.975 mm thickness (this is the heaviest stringing I have met; you should see the soundboard underneath... a Panzer) Bechstein 1871 has 326 mm length and 0.875 mm thickness (this is straight strung) Bechstein 1871 has 326 mm length and 0.925 mm thickness (this is cross strung) Bechstein 1878 has 332 mm length and 0.975 mm thickness Steinway 1891 has 326 mm length and 0.950 mm thickness Knabe 1877 has 320 mm length and 1.000 mm thickness I would like to know where your Blüthner stands. I'd guess around 320 mm and 0.875 mm, and as such, it would be reasonable to think that the intention was a modern sound (for that period). What did you do to the soundboard for adding stiffness? Add weight underneath? And this "improved" the bass, causing more lower partials volume? I would have guessed that it would increase the tenor sustain, at the cost of volume. Does the instrument have a sort of floating bass design? Tapered board in that region? Fanned ribbing? Best regards. Stéphane Collin. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bluthnerbackside.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 67419 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20091117/e7bfd477/attachment-0001.jpg>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC