<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 12 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>Yes, Dale is correct.  Different string makers have different solutions and ideas.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Just to pursue this a bit further, here’s a graphic illustration of what different string scalers might come up with.  My general procedure on all pianos is to calculate out the string scale and at least look at it.  I have my own spread sheet for this.  On this particular Steinway B it was clear that the upper treble dropped off considerably owing to a relatively short speaking length at note 88.  On both of these a recapped bridge allowed me to layout the top treble section a bit differently with a speaking length at 88 of 52 rather than 48 mm that was there on the original and a log scale in that section.   I feel quite comfortable in the plain wire section however in the bass I defer to others with more experience than I have yet you can see there are differences and one does have to make an esthetic judgment at some point and go with what sounds best no matter how it may look on paper.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>The treatment at the bottom of the tenor bridge varied with a few minor tweaks of wire, no changes to wrapped strings there.    <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>The original scaling (#1) had a very pronounced tonal jump at note 20.  You can see that in the graph.  The tonal transition is at best a problem there but this original (early 20th century) Steinway scaling enhanced that difference even more.  The more recent scaling that Steinway uses is slightly different with lower tension at note 20, lower impedance and not quite such a loud bark.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>The bass scaling was two different proposals by different people (#2 and #3).  I put #3 on originally and then eventually took it off because I didn’t like it settling for #2.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Just to give an example of how people can view this differently and come up with different solutions.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>The line at the bottom that is unlabeled is the BP%, btw.  You’ll need to be in html to view this and, of course, it won’t reach the archives.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><![if !supportLists]>1.       <![endif]> Original Steinway B<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><img width=817 height=430 id="Chart_x0020_2" src="cid:image006.png@01CDD9F3.86049520"><o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><![if !supportLists]>2.       <![endif]> Steinway B with modified treble layout and bass rescaling<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><img width=723 height=402 id="Chart_x0020_1" src="cid:image007.png@01CDD9F3.86049520"><o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><![if !supportLists]>3.       <![endif]> Steinway B with modifed treble layout and different bass scaling<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><img width=702 height=430 id="Chart_x0020_4" src="cid:image008.png@01CDD9F3.86049520"><o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p>David Love<o:p></o:p>www.davidlovepianos.com<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Dale Erwin Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 7:25 AM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] GH-1s, etc.<o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p>By the way for what its worth, String makers will tell you certain thing based on there on bias and method of calculating in tensions. IE. For a while I had a well known string maker make tri-chords for 3 wrapped unison for the Stwy B break. (on the original bridge) It was an improvement but I wanted bi-chords but was told that it couldn't be done.  <o:p></o:p><div>  Well turns out I didn't like the tri-chords so much. SO I asked another maker if they could make the bi-chord and they said sure no problem. SO as it turns out, for my ear, its a good remedy when not adding a transition bridge,  and less invasive to the original design than lopping off the bridge. Some folks like the original thing.<o:p></o:p></div><div>  I only add 3unisons of bichord and its a much better sounding break than original....and more musical than the tri-chords. The tri-chords developed false beats after a while and some broke. ughh how I hate that.<o:p></o:p><div>Dale Erwin R.P.T. Erwin's Piano Restoration Inc. Mason & Hamlin/Steinway/U.S. pianos <a href="http://www.Erwinspiano.com">www.Erwinspiano.com</a> Phone: 209-577-8397 <tt> </tt> <tt>  </tt><o:p></o:p></div></div></div></body></html>