[pianotech] GH-1s

[David Love]

I think bi-chords are preferred as well, except when they're not.  There
might not be many occasions where a trichord is better but it can happen and
I've seen at least one side by side comparison where the tri-chord won out,
in my opinion.  A good string maker can handle the issues of manufacturing
accuracy.  Mismatched bichords are not unusual either from the less skilled.
We should be able to handle hammer mating.  

I'm not sure I agree with your premise that there is a "disconnect between
tonal assumptions appropriate for large venue pianos and the big piano tonal
assumptions which have been grafted onto instruments whose power and
intended venues are qualitatively different than their big brothers"

Scale design is really the driving force behind these issues and I see
plenty of small pianos with lower tension string scales than their concert
hall big brothers.  I also see some small pianos with high(er) tension
scales but that seems to be owing in part to the designers wishes.  Yamaha
or Bechstein come to mind.  

So, I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "this disconnect continues to this
day, to define and unfairly limit small belly design, and, mind bogglingly,
define upright design as well".



 
David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com


-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Jim Ialeggio
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 6:30 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: [pianotech] GH-1s

Ron wrote:

<Finding three wrapped strings in the same unison that match well doesn't
seem likely in my experience. Bichords are more likely to match, and be
easier to tune. It's easier to mate strings to hammers with bichords than
trichords

For me, this reasoning, in and of itself, trumps other considerations,
particularly since the numbers can often be worked out with bichords. In a
contest of wills, the limits of the material always wins.

Taking this discussion past dealing with a challenging break, my own take on
small belly scaling issues, which has not been discussed as of yet, is to
take advantage of  newer lower tensile strength cores, ie Paullelo and Pure
Sound wire. They offer other possibilities as far as maintaining appropriate
BP% with poorly laid out bridges, which were not available before.

In addition, I think the conventional string scaling of a small belly makes
tonal assumptions which are at odds with the physical limitations of a small
belly presents, and at odds with the small home venues these pianos will
populate. Using the lower tensile strength wire throughout the bass and a
fair amount of the tenor, in concert with modern conventional wire, I shoot
for a tension profile, that makes it easier for the small belly to play to
its strengths rather than accentuate the fact that it is much smaller than
its steroid chomping big brothers.

I find a disconnect between tonal assumptions appropriate for large venue
pianos and the big piano tonal assumptions which have been grafted onto
instruments whose power and intended venues are qualitatively different than
their big brothers. This disconnect, in my opinion, is the "cause" of much
small belly inadequacy...and this disconnect continues to this day, to
define and unfairly limit small belly design, and, mind bogglingly, define
upright design as well.


Jim Ialeggio

-- 
Jim Ialeggio	
jim at grandpianosolutions.com
978 425-9026
Shirley Center, MA