<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link="#000000" vlink="#000000"><div class=WordSection1>I’ve not yet had the pleasure of hearing Terry’s M&H upright. I have, however, been able to see and hear several other pianos that have been rebuilt to a very similar design. That is, the same basic soundboard design and scaling had been adapted to fit a specific back assembly and plate design; each is slightly different because of variations in the basic platforms but the essentials of the soundboard design remain the same. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I agree with you that the early M&H upright can sound pretty good. But it shares certain performance limitations that are common to most early—and some contemporary—upright pianos. The bass, while big and strong, is not as articulate as it might be with the bass wave envelope lacking any significant energy at the fundamental and first harmonic. The bass-to-tenor crossover is typically rough, the low tenor hook giving a somewhat tubby sound even in high-end pianos like M&H. The tenor and treble are usually pretty good though I don’t remember being overly impressed by either the power or the timbral dynamics of the high treble. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I don’t at all understand what you mean when you write, “17 ribs is the same number as a stock D so it had sufficient mass and stiffness from the original design to support crown and drive tone.” Drive tone? I’m not sure what this means; please explain. And seventeen ribs will certainly support crown—assuming the ribs themselves are actually crowned—but so will nine ribs if they are similarly crowned. And I once replaced a soundboard in a 6’-something Chickering that was originally built with just five ribs. As each of these was about 2” tall and heavily crowned the thing had lots of crown but it also had some significant variations in power and sustain across the scale. Great power and short sustain in between the ribs and excellent sustain but little power right on the ribs. Good crown, though.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Whether or not this sort of rebuilding/redesign appeals to anyone is highly subjective. If you’re happy with the way the original sounds you’ll not see any value at all in changing things. Indeed it will probably be seen as heresy and a thing to be avoided. This was the general attitude of most technicians back in the 1970s when I started presenting my ideas of how to alter original designs to achieve results otherwise unobtainable. Indeed, if memory serves, Dale, you were among the skeptics but you now seem to be venturing into the realm of at least moderate design changes in some of your own work. Although—now nearly 40 years later—at least some of those early ideas have begun to catch on outside the circle of early pioneers many still do regard the very notion of altering original design with a combination of skepticism, fear and contempt. This is a part of piano rebuilding that is clearly not for everybody; whether the results achieved by changing the original designs are found desirable or not is, as I’ve said, subjective. Just as the firm ride and precise handling of a Porsche is found desirable by some and uncomfortable by others. Still, even the traditionalist technician had to admit that the Steinway M with its relocated bass bridge and cleaned up scaling is simply a better sounding musical instrument than the same model having authentic design and parts.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Getting back to the admittedly radical upright design—my goals in developing this design for upright pianos were simple: I wanted a clearer, more articulate bass (not necessarily louder), a musically transparent bass-to-tenor transition, an open and musically dynamic tenor and a treble with a little more depth (a loud treble is nice but I wanted a little more timbral range between pianissimo and forte). While the goals were simple achieving them was not. This basic design was developed for our own 122 cm upright but the concept translates well to both larger and smaller pianos. Each of the upright pianos I’ve heard that was redesigned and rebuilt using this concept did so and I was pleased to hear them (as were their owners). But, I have come to find, these are not goals that are either shared or sought after by all pianists or by all technicians and such is life.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>ddf <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p>Delwin D Fandrich<o:p></o:p>Piano Design & Fabrication<o:p></o:p>6939 Foothill Court SW, Olympia, Washington 98512 USA<o:p></o:p>Phone  360.515.0119 — Cell 360.388.6525<o:p></o:p><a href="mailto:del@fandrichpiano.com">del@fandrichpiano.com </a>— <a href="mailto:ddfandrich@gmail.com">ddfandrich@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Dale Erwin Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 6:55 AM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Terrys Mason & Hamlin up.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Hi Terry   I've enjoyed these pictures again and the discussion of engineering of course but where is this piano  now and more importantly....what does it sound like? Who plays it? I don't care how subjective the words you may use to describe it are,  or may seem to some, but I'd like to know. Any recordings?  I don't know what year this M&H is but I have heard original ones that had a very well made rib scale with more smaller ribs in the top treble  and 17 ribs total. 17 ribs is the same number as a stock D so it had sufficient mass and stiffness from the original design to support crown and drive tone.  Not only that but the 1905 I heard.... sounded stellar, old strings and all. Amazing sonorous sustain and a balanced  scale thru out. Honestly....I would have been hard pressed to think that in this case the design could have been improved substantially. So I'm curious about all this as I have a Gorgeous Victorian Hardman upright that Carl Meyer gave me before he died and that I will rebuild at some point  Just my thoughts on it. Dale<o:p></o:p><div>Dale Erwin... RPT Mason & Hamlin/Steinway/U.S pianos <a href="http://www.Erwinspiano.com">www.Erwinspiano.com</a> 209-577-8397 <tt> </tt> <tt>  </tt><o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p><div>-----Original Message----- From: Terry Farrell <<a href="mailto:mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com">mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com</a>> To: pianotech <<a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a>> Sent: Fri, May 18, 2012 3:57 am Subject: Re: [pianotech] S&S K(52) Restoration<o:p></o:p><div id="AOLMsgPart_2_74e1c872-ee11-4cd6-97bb-2b8481ea7a38"><div>Thanks Dean. I may have gotten a little gray, but I can still get real aggressive.........<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>Mmmmmmm, hard maple splinters with hide glue sauce!<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div><img border=0 width=640 height=480 id="_x0036_0050bc5-69d5-4518-b17f-935c33ecb1b2" src="cid:image001.jpg@01CD37FA.A66DD560"><o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>Terry Farrell<o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p><div><div>On May 17, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Dean May wrote:<o:p></o:p></div> <o:p></o:p><div><div><div>Nice to have you back, Terry. I missed your cool pictures. You are looking a little grayer around the muzzle there… <o:p></o:p></div></div></div></div><o:p> </o:p></div></div></div></body></html>