It’s not an issue of “bright”. You can make a high impedance system sound bright. Technically I suppose it amounts to soundboard velocity, freedom of movement upon the input of energy. That massive bridge is too restrictive, I believe. Since I’m building a new soundboard for this one (of course you couldn’t cut down the bridge unless you were, at least not easily), then I can build the impedance I want into the board itself by optimizing the rib scale even without changing the number or locations. The bridge, which adds something to the impedance of the system, can then be designed or modified in size to be where I think it should be. That might also mean cutting it down some which then might involve reexamining the string heights and action elevations. The plate sits comfortably off the soundboard on dowels by at least ¼” so there’s room to that but I haven’t gotten into all the implications yet. Anyway, that’s simply based on my own experience with other pianos. There are many things I like about the MH (except all those little brass, half round aliquots) but I find them a bit choked generally and I believe one of the contributing factors is that massive bridge. I have restrung and reconditioned several Conover 77 pianos (though I’ve never put a new board in one). They are very nice pianos and the results even on the old boards were good but I don’t recall the bridge configuration. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Euphonious Thumpe Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 6:18 AM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] cutting down a MH bridge David, If what you're getting at is that the tone of some Masons doesn't "brighten" enough with faster keystrokes for your taste, I can see that. (As a bit --- though ONLY a bit--- of a pianist.) I'm not experienced enough to discern how much of that is a hammer issue, and how much a belly issue (please advise --- such wisdom may apply to my Conover 77, which was designed by the same chap) but if you could remedy it, that would be a fine thing indeed! Thumpe P.S. The extraordinary, spectacular and amazing Ragtime/Stride pianist Stephanie Trick (please see her youtube videos!) will be performing at parties at the Reutlinger Mansion in S.F. this Saturday and Sunday, and I'll send you info on how to attend, if you're interested. _____ From: Euphonious Thumpe <lclgcnp at yahoo.com>; To: <pianotech at ptg.org>; Subject: Re: [pianotech] cutting down a MH bridge Sent: Fri, Nov 2, 2012 4:20:37 AM I do agree with you, David! Thanks for all the info. I'm too fatigued to assimilate it all at present (it's 12:09 here -- AM or PM depending on whom one asks-- I call it AM) and all I further "figgered" is that a "dead" plate will, besides not augmenting partials, also not transmit vibrations itself very well to the rim. So that eliminates some factors; leaving scale, hammers, and belly design (3's plenty!) to work with....... unless I'm forgetting something... (Like I said ---it's time to go to sleep.) Thumpe P.S. I recently moved 2 Conover 77's (much like Masons) both "vintage", but one had an AMAZINGLY fat bass side (like 7-1/2" thick!) while the other was more like 5". Too bad I didn't have them both strung and side-by-side; but the 7-1/2" thick one had a GREAT bass! _____ From: David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>; To: <pianotech at ptg.org>; Subject: Re: [pianotech] cutting down a MH bridge Sent: Fri, Nov 2, 2012 4:00:26 AM Defining tone is difficult at best. Warm can also mean a bit stingy. I would prefer something a bit freer and I think the bridge and its size gets in the way of that somewhat. A bridge that lacks adequate height can also be a problem (though at the other end of the spectrum) and I’ve seen Steinway bridges that were very short at note 88 that benefited from being made a bit taller. OF course that requires some plate elevation changes and such but it doesn’t take much. Ron’s right, these aren’t calculations, just dead reckoning. Heavy dead plates are good things as are solid, heavy rims. Higher tension scales can be dealt with by properly designing the rib scale. The bridge adds some stiffness and unifies the assembly and distributes the load, but it doesn’t need to be that big, at least I don’t think so. I think the tone will be improved: more expressive, wider range of dynamics, livelier and freer sound. But that’s just my opinion, others may not agree. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Euphonious Thumpe Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 8:33 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] cutting down a MH bridge Not really, Ron. (I should have put "calculations" in quotes.) What I meant was "mental" calculations: figgerin', flossiphizin', stuph like that....... (All I'm good for --- numbers scare me!) This thread just got the marbles bouncing around... but not really knowing where to go....... So you have an ultra-dead plate, strung at a relatively high tension, over fat, impedance inducing bridges, on a CC board, on a beefy case....... and it all somehow adds up to that warm, rich, Mason tone....... (albeit with a board that splits like crazy, eventually) and the goal here is to improve on that. (Which I'm certain can be done!) Hmmmmmm... I'd just really want to contemplate all these complementary and countervailing (some, perhaps, by design) factors, before I tried anything... Thumpe _____ From: Ron Nossaman <rnossaman at cox.net>; To: <pianotech at ptg.org>; Subject: Re: [pianotech] cutting down a MH bridge Sent: Fri, Nov 2, 2012 3:14:24 AM On 11/1/2012 9:47 PM, Euphonious Thumpe wrote: > (I'm just offering this > info, in case it may be of some help in your calculations.) You overestimate the scope of the calculations. Ron N -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20121102/3d036c92/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC