<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=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>Plate “ring?” Or hammer knock? I don’t recall plate ringing being a problem. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Hammer knock is—among other things—a function of hammer mass and density. If you design an acoustical system that is relatively more efficient you can then use hammers that are relatively lighter and still get good performance. The top twenty or twenty-five hammers in the Fandrich upright were 9 mm wide and used relatively thin moldings and a less than normal amount of felt. I don’t recall just how heavy the tenor/treble hammers were just now but they were the lightest hammers used on any production piano at the time. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>At the other end the bass hammers were 11 mm wide and the tenor hammers were 10 mm wide. This better blended the hammer mass curve through the bass-to-tenor transition. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>ddf<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div>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></div><o:p> </o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Gene Nelson Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 1:25 PM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] David Love--Centeringthe bridge--was S&S something er other<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>Did your treble design help eliminate or reduce or noticeably have any effect on plate ring? Especially in the top 5 or so notes?<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></div>From: <a href="mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org">pianotech-bounces@ptg.org</a> <a href="mailto:[mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]">[mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]</a> On Behalf Of Delwin D Fandrich Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 1:14 PM To: <a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a> Subject: Re: [pianotech] David Love--Centeringthe bridge--was S&S something er other<o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p>Well, that is what most of this conversation has been about. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>At the time I was designing the 122 Fandrich vertical piano it seemed logical to me (and it still does) that it would be desirable to place the driving energy source of the vibrating diaphragm—i.e., the bridge—relatively close to the middle of the working part of the soundboard and its supporting ribs. The energy wave starts there and moves away from both sides of the bridge on across the soundboard to the mounting points and it seems a good idea that both arrive at more-or-less the same time. Since this was a new design and I could do anything I wanted I did so and was pleased with the results. It’s one of the best treble sections I’ve designed for any piano of any type. This was, to my knowledge, one of very few pianos that have been built with the treble section designed so the bridge could be placed relatively close to the center of the ribs. At least I can’t recall seeing any others. The physical construction of the grand piano makes it impossible and I don’t know of any upright piano designs that attempted it though there might well be some.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>As may be, I got a combination of power and sustain out of this design that was noticeably better than anything I’d done previously. And this with relatively light and un-juiced hammers. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>ddf<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div>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></div><o:p> </o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>From: <a href="mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org">pianotech-bounces@ptg.org</a> <a href="mailto:[mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]">[mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]</a> On Behalf Of Gene Nelson Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:37 AM To: <a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a> Subject: Re: [pianotech] David Love--Centering the bridge--was S&S something er other<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>Yes indeed. Can you talk a bit about the treble bridge as well? Without your redesign work the bridge would also be located near the end of a rib – not so desirable up there.<o:p></o:p><div><div style='margin-left:36.0pt'><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></div></div></div></div></body></html>