<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.5700.6" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE>@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } P { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } SPAN.EmailStyle18 { COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } </STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY lang=EN-US id=role_body bottomMargin=7 vLink=purple link=blue bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7> <DIV>According to a handout from Dr. Albert Sanderson, the ranges for "very low" to "very high" tension scales are:</DIV> <DIV>Monochords: 200 to 290 pounds</DIV> <DIV>Bichords: 160 to 235 pounds</DIV> <DIV>Trichords: 140 to 200 pounds</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>He also provides a graph of low-to-high inharmonicity, but this is more difficult to describe. For High, the graph of inharmonicity constant B, in cents, goes from 0.24 at note 1, down to a low of 0.13 at note 18, and then rises steadily to 21.0 at note 88.</DIV> <DIV>For Low, these three points are 0.21 at note 1, 0.1 at note 21, and 10.2 at note 88.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jason</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #008080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From: <A title=ahm@webband.com href="mailto:ahm@webband.com">Alan McCoy</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">To: <A title=pianotech@ptg.org href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">'Pianotech List'</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:46 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">Subject: High tension? Low? Board stiffness? was Hammer Types</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left> Hi, In the recent hammer types thread David Love and others talked about high-tension and low-tension scales. Quantitatively what does that mean? I'd like to see some actual, real-world parameters as to the upper and lower limits of tension for high-tension and low-tension scales. Would these parameters change correspondingly as the size of the piano changes? Ditto for inharmonicity. I don't ask for much, do I?! ;-) While we're at it, can soundboard stiffness be evaluated (at least qualitatively) on your basic fully-strung piano in someone's living room? What are the major factors that define stiffness? Does downbearing play a role here? I'm looking for an answer that has specific, measurable quantities like, "A stiff system has ribs spaced x inches apart with each rib notched into the rim. Ribs are x inches in profile under the long bridge tapering to x inches then tapering to x inches at the rim. A stiff board is x inches thick under the long bridge tapering to ......, whereas a flexible system ..................." And also, "X piano brand is a good example of a stiff system, whereas x pianos use a more flexible system..........." You get the idea. The other thing in this thread that got my attention was the description of the hammer types matched to the Walter scale. I installed a set of Ronsen Wurzen hammers on a Baldwin L last year. I would characterize the sound as being darker and colorful, and maybe needing a little juice especially in the top 2 octaves for a bit more definition. Needling was not even a consideration for these hammers on this piano . But David's description of the Wurzens on the Walter paints a very different picture of Ronsen Wurzens. So what gives? Is there a lot of difference in Wurzens from set to set? Or is it that if we were to put the same Wurzens on the Baldwin L and then the Walter, we would have "dark" hammers on one, but "bright" hammers on the other, the explanation being that the tone produced is a function of the interaction of the hammer with the board system? Is it possible for their to be enough difference in the board system to produce such different tone (needling like hell vs. maybe needing a bit of juice) from the same type of hammer (assuming the hammers are identical)? Trying to educate myself. Thanks for any responses and thanks also to David for initiating this interesting thread. Alan  </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left> <HR tabIndex=-1> From: David Love [mailto:davidlovepianos@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:55 PM To: 'Pianotech List' Subject: Changing the tone on tone: was RE: Hammer Types </DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=Section1> “They don’t make pianofortes anymore, they just make fortes”   Paraphrased remark attributed to Dale Erwin’s father that has always stuck with me.     Cellist to Pianist:  “Can’t you play any softer” Pianist:  “Well, actually…no, I can’t”   Conversation overheard at a rehearsal of the Brahms B Major Trio:     Tone is everything in piano work, in my view.   The rest is secondary, or simply mechanical.  There’s no precise language for it like Alizarin Crimson or burnt garlic, and so it’s difficult to talk about with any assurance that your experience is the same as mine.  We can only assume that the words we choose describe the sound that I think you might be hearing—if you are.  In spite of how my views have been misrepresented, I am really quite open about tone.  There are a broad range of possibilities and a variety of tastes to go with them.  I have customers who love their Yamahas, the bright and powerfully percussive tone they offer and those who wouldn’t be caught dead playing one for the same reasons.  I have Steinway customers who long for that dark, warm, singing tone that they recall from their childhood and others whose Steinways simply can’t be made bright enough or loud enough.  When it comes to addressing the needs of a particular piano or customer preferences, we need to be open to what the piano can deliver and what the customer wants.  And I am.  “Whatever you want” is my mantra when it comes to customer work, even if I wouldn’t choose it myself.  When rebuilding a piano with original materials I always engage customers in a discussion about tone, what they like, or don’t like, how I can make the piano to best suit their tastes.  If they want something that will be difficult to achieve with a given piano, I tell them.  I might even go so far as to say that if that’s what they want, they own the wrong piano.  It can happen.  Each piano’s design pushes its tonal signature in one direction or the other.  Scale design, soundboard design and health, rim structure, plate design, all contribute to the direction in which the piano can comfortably be pushed.  Try to make it into something it’s not and you end up with a mediocre result at best (a structural disaster at worst).  Will the customer be happy anyway?  They might.   It’s likely that whatever you do to a piano that is on the brink of disintegration will be an improvement.  Sometimes we have to be content to do that—and certainly I have.      When working with old and tired soundboards, we must (in today’s parlance) accept them for what they are.  Trying to get them to perform as if they were new and expecting the same type of tone generally leads to a disappointing result.  Accepting the structural and thereby tonal changes that occur with old boards allows us, if we listen carefully, to perhaps modify our scale design, pick a more suitable hammer now than the original and/or modify our voicing strategy to make the best of what the board still has to offer.  That can lead to a very acceptable, even beautiful result.  But it will be different from the original no matter what we do and the sooner we accept that, the better off we are.  We can try and force our own tastes onto the piano but, if we are honest, only in so far as the piano’s design or condition allows.    When it comes to building a piano from the ground up, however, or reengineering a scale and soundboard, then we are absolved of all previous commitments and we have real choices that we can make (existing plate considerations notwithstanding).  High, medium or low tension scales are where things start.  From the low tension scales of Estonia to the high tension scales characterized by many Japanese pianos, each one will have their own soundboard requirements, hammer requirements and accompanying tonal character.  I happen to like low tension sound (but not too low) better than high tension sound, so left to my own devices I would chose a platform that supports that preference.  If tonal expectations of a customer were better associated with a high tension scale, however, then, given the means, I would be fine to build that as well.  Either way, I would expect that design differences would produce differences in tonal character (let’s put the wart issue aside for now) and that accompanying hammer requirements as well as voicing requirements would also be different.    In summary, each scale and soundboard assembly pushes the instrument in a particular direction.  While there is always a range of possibilities within any particular design, each design does carry its own tonal bias.  As piano technicians, trying to bring out the best in each piano we come across, we hear those differences intuitively.  We adjust our expectations according to each instrument and each instrument becomes our temporary standard for the possibilities of good tone.  If we find something that appeals to us we tend to latch onto it and carry it around as our model.  But that can hurt as well as help us.  It helps us by giving us a higher standard for each piano we encounter.  It hurts us in that the expectations we carry forward are not always realistic—or desirable—for the next instrument and we can end up trying to force the piano toward our ideal with a poorer result than if we’d been open to what the piano really had to offer in the first place.    Power, brightness, sustain, clarity, warmth, richness, dynamic range: in a piano we don’t get to simply opt for the maximum amount of each.  They all exist in a multi-dimensional continuum in which you sometimes trade one for another in a never ending balancing act achieved both by design and execution.  There are, no doubt, many acceptable formulas within that continuum dictated by a variety of factors, not the least of which is just exactly what music is being played.  We should probably accept that in so far as there are a variety of tonal formulas as well as musical requirements, no single piano (or treatment) will be perfect for all types of music, players, audiences or technicians.  So when given the opportunity, why not be faithful to ourselves?  Vive la difference!         <DIV> David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com </DIV>  </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>