<HTML>   Wimblees@aol.com wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>In a message dated 98-02-14 13:54:31 EST, you write: << > My bet is that a hundred years from now it will still  > be made just about the same way,  I sincerely hope not. Del; This brings up an entirely different concept. If you had your way, what would you do different in the design of a piano, not just the action, but the over concept, that would make it better than what we have today? Wim  <HR WIDTH="100%"></BLOCKQUOTE> Wim, I'm often accused of wanting to reinvent the piano. Of wanting to change the concept of the piano we have today. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want to see the piano back on a continual path of evolution and refinement. I want to see it take full advantage of the changes in materials and the labor force that have been the result of our "modern" society. Not suffer from them. Diminishing supplies of musical instrument grade spruce should be viewed as challenges to be exploited, not catastrophes. I want to see the pianos being built today so much better than those that were built 25 years ago that the present owner has a musically compelling reason to trade his 25 (or 100) year old Steinway in on a new one. So, are we talking about grands or uprights? For uprights, I'll pass until the last of my series on small piano design has been published. Probably some time in late spring. For grands, check out the Walter grand. This has at least some of the ideas I think should be explored and was representative of my thinking in 1990/91. (Please keep in mind that I've only seen two production pianos since I finished the design and a lot can happen between the drafting table -- the main drawing was laid out before I switched totally to the computer for design and drafting work -- and the production floor. I'm sure many changes have been made to the basic design since I have been separated from the project.) It doesn't look strange at all. In fact, I think the piano looks rather elegant. Of course, one could say I'm prejudiced. And I am. As may be, the stringing scale through the tenor does not have the foreshortened "hockey stick" hook at the low end. The bass scale is also done with a log length progression instead of the reverse curve that is common today. The soundboard and rib structure are somewhat different than the norm. The ribbing is laid out in the fan-like, non-parallel, configuration that I've been working on for the past few years. By the way, it is not a "compression-crowned" assembly. The rim is exceptionally rigid and well braced. The belly bracing was actually designed with the acoustics of the piano in mind. There are a number of other detail changes that I really don't want to go into that aren't obvious to the casual observer, but that are important to the overall performance of the package. So, is this piano the final word in piano design? No, of course not. Nor are those my final thoughts on grand piano design. The designer of any product learns a lot during the process of conceiving, designing and assembling the prototypes of any new example of that product. So does the builder as he takes that design and those prototypes and turns them into the final manufactured product. In other words, I'd be very surprised if at least some of that original design hasn't been sacrificed in order to make the piano buildable. Anyway, there is still more work to be done with soundboard and rib design. We are exploring some of these ideas in our own work as we speak. (No, I'm not going to go into detail online.) There is much more to be done with matching the stringing scale to the soundboard. We're also working on this. String termination needs some serious work. Both at the bridge and at the plate end. Ditto. There is no excuse for all of the string noise problems that continue plague certain pianos. If we can essentially eliminate them during the remanufacturing process, then surely this can be done at the design and manufacturing end. The technology exists to completely eliminate the acoustical problems associated with the "killer octave." Sustain can be improved by at least 25% to 50% through this region along with accompanying increases in acoustic power and improvements in tone quality. Most of this can be done during remanufacturing existing pianos, but it would be much easier and effective to do it during manufacture. The bass/tenor break designs still need improvement. Again, if we can make these acoustically transparent on remanufactured pianos, surely it can be done at the design and manufacturing end. It is also becoming increasingly clear to me that rim shape has more to do with piano tone production than has been previously thought. (And, no. I don't mean that they should be made bigger so that they can "amplify" the sound better.) Unfortunately, this is not something we can change during the remanufacturing process. By the way, it is my opinion that most of this work should really be done on what are considered "low-end" pianos. The reasons for the poor tone performance associated with low-end pianos are largely design related. At least they are not reasons that can be attributed solely to materials or to the manufacturing process. Tone performance is more a matter of good design than it is one of manufacturing cost. At the risk of beating a dead -- or at least dying -- horse, much work needs to be done to bring hammers back to a softer, more elastic, consistency. Without sacrificing the production efficiencies that modern hydraulic presses have gained. The kind of piano performance I'm referring to does not come from the excessively hard hammers commonly found in pianos today. They are only required because of the relatively unresponsive acoustical structures so common in today's pianos. So much for new pianos. I'm sure I've upset enough folks for one day. If you'd like to know what I'm thinking about relative to older pianos, I'll send you a copy of our newsletter, PianoTalk. Post your mailing address. Regards, Del</HTML>