<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>M & H AA scale & other stuff</title></head><body> <div>Hi all,</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite> <blockquote> <blockquote><font size="-1">-----Original Message-----<br> <b>From:</b></font> <a href="mailto:Erwinspiano@aol.com"><font size="-1">Erwinspiano@aol.com</font></a><font size="-1"> [mailto:Erwinspiano@aol.com]<br> <b>Sent:</b> Saturday, July 17, 2004 12:01 AM<br> <b>To:</b> pianotech@ptg.org<br> <b>Subject:</b> Mason & Hamlin AA scale.</font></blockquote> <blockquote><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></blockquote> <blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000">     To all esteemed scaleheads,</font></blockquote> <blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000">  I just received a AA for a complete rewhatevering & I'm very unimpressed by the bass tenor break. This one is 1919 with 2 bichords & 7 trichords. With all of our discussions about third bridges & such I'm drawing the conclusion that this on is ill devised. Tonally it abysmal to the ear. I learned from a friend who is doing another dated 1931 that this vintage has all 9 transition notes in bichords. He & I have yet to hear it as it's not done.</font></blockquote> <blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000">  I'm considering either switching to 9 bichords with the old bridge but the string lengths seem dreadfully short. Does any one have the string tension logged for this model. My guess is it would be instructive.</font></blockquote> <blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000">  The other option is to do away with most of it and use the small piece that juts out toward the spine.</font></blockquote> <blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000">  Any body out there played with this model?<br>   My 1950s AA has one long bridge with 5 bichords. It could have used 6 as note27 is wiry sounding. Kind of honky& low tensionish. I'll know more when I run the scale.</font></blockquote> <blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000"> It's obviously a design that has been transitional.</font></blockquote> <blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000">   Any thoughts, Ideas?</font></blockquote> <blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000">   Dale</font></blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <div><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000"><br></font></div> <div>Hi Dale,</div> <div><br></div> <div>I'd be very interested in seeing a tail-overhead image of the piano in question, if you can get one organised. I'm leaving for the APTTA convention in 30 hours, but I'd be interested in seeing it before I go. I can respond while I'm away but I can't get emails.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Kristie and I have had Ron N. and Loui Nossaman staying with us since last Friday. We've 'swapped the odd lie' after sticking our collective heads into a couple of controversial instruments on the local scene. Its been an interesting few days. On Thursday we're all going to Adelaide for the APTTA 2004 convention. We had Roger and Maree Jolly with us for the week before. Its been interesting having these list heavy-weights in town. Both Ron N. and Roger had a crawl through our no. 5 and the Stuart concert grand at the Conservatorium. Ron N. and I also had a long look over the Stuart 220 last Friday. Very interesting indeed. He had his Lowell down-bearing gauge with him, which was most revealing. Its a wonderful tool.</div> <div><br></div> <div>We're taking our No. 5 along for exhibit at the Adelaide convention this coming weekend. The Sydney Conservatorium administrators kindly agreed to lend it to me for the week. I was delighted to hear that other pianos on exhibit will include Bösendorfer 214, Steinway Hamburg B and a Yamaha S6. This provides a good opportunity for direct comparisons to be drawn. Can't wait.</div> <div><br></div> <div>At 8:55 AM -0400 19/7/04, Farrell wrote:</div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">. . . 1891 was what, 20 or 25 years after the first overstrung bass piano? I would guess that there just hadn't been enough trial and error with the stringing scales and matching soundboard design to these scales to predictably produce good sounding bass/tenor break areas. And after all, they needed to keep the bass section of the six-foot piano the same size (number of notes) as the nine-foot piano, so that prevented them from placing 28 or 32 notes on the bass bridge.</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">I don't really understand the boundless reverence given to the developers of pianos a hundred years ago.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Agreed, while respecting the thinking of the past we should give scrutiny to contemporary ideas as they come along.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"> No doubt at all that many of them were very intelligent, very creative, very inventive - hey, they basically invented the modern piano. But just like the inventions of electrical energy, modern medicine, space travel, etc., etc., just because these were fabulous inventions made by brilliant people doesn't mean that the basic inventions cannot be improved upon.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Indeed, there were creative people doing stuff in previous times, and the average IQ probably hasn't taken too much of a dip since then. We might witness some real evolutionary contemporary stuff, if we can release ourselves from the time warp of the past century.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite> <font face="Arial" size="-1">My understanding is that most Stradivari and Guarneri violins in professional use today have had significant modifications to them to make them more consistent with what is expected of a modern violin played in a modern orchestra (I'm really not sure what they do to them - modified neck, bridges???). Only groups that specifically target making music on period instruments might use one of these violins that even resembles an original configuration. So if it is OK to modify these instruments to produce what is generally considered to be a more pleasing sound today, why is there so much resistance to modifying a first-generation modern piano?</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Exactly, the earlier violins that are used for today's concert performances are highly modified instruments. So why are so many so damn precious about modifying existing pianos?</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite> <font face="Arial" size="-1">As always, if one is targeting recreating a piano from 1890 because they specifically wish to hear what a new piano from that era might have sounded like, of course, that is a very legitimate direction to go. But if you are trying to make the best piano you can, why blindly throw up your hands and say that it is not possible to improve upon the work of the "Original Masters"? Now before I get pummeled to death, understand that I don't think change for the sake of change is necessarily good. Have a good reason for making changes. Consult with those that know about these kinds of things and have the experience.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Agreed on all counts.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite> <blockquote>----- Original Message -----</blockquote> <blockquote><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:collin.s@skynet.be">Stéphane Collin</a></blockquote> <blockquote><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">Pianotech</a></blockquote> <blockquote><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 18, 2004 5:55 PM</blockquote> <blockquote><b>Subject:</b> Re: Mason & Hamlin AA scale.</blockquote> <blockquote><br></blockquote> <blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1">Hi Mark and all.</font></blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1">I run into the same third bridge problem on my 1891 Steinway A.  It sounds awful, while the rest sounds great.  Pitty to hear that changing for bichords instead of trichords didn't help much for the sound.  I feel I could possibly be ready to follow Terry F to the shop of Del F and ask for redesinging.</font></blockquote> </blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Yep, changing to bichords on the tenor bridge is a step in the right direction, but it is only one step of several which will be required to rectify the perceived tonal deficiencies.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite> <blockquote><font face="Arial" size="-1">Does anyone know what the hell those splendid engineers of Steinway had in mind when desinging that third bridge ?</font></blockquote> </blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Speculating from 2004, I would say they were heading in the right direction, given that they weren't prepared to move the break further up the scale to where it should have been<font color="#0000FF"> (the tenor bridged S&S model A, for example, is a much better basic design than the contemporary offering)</font>. But they didn't want to move the break because they wanted to retain the break and look of the longer D piano. However, from my perspective at least, further significant modifications are necessary to get the best from this scaling layout.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Ron O.</div> <x-sigsep><pre>-- </pre></x-sigsep> <div><font face="Times New Roman" size="+1" color="#0000FF"><b>OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY</b></font></div> <div><font color="#000000"><i>   </i></font><font color="#0000FF"><i>Grand Piano Manufacturers</i></font><font color="#000000"><br> _______________________</font></div> <div><font size="-2" color="#000000"><br> </font><font color="#000000">Web http://overspianos.com.au</font></div> <div><font color="#000000">mailto:info@overspianos.com.au<br> _______________________</font></div> </body> </html>