<!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 6.00.2800.1264" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV>Hello Dale</DIV> <DIV>I have to admit to starting this thread sometime back when I posed = the query: I have found that the Tone Bell (Steinway's own term) is only = present in those grands which have a Sos-ped. I have tuned many S&S which have = no Sos-ped and none of them have a Tone-bell. Does the Tone-bell have any = tonal effect or is it in some way a contributing factor in the use of a = Sos-ped? Well, that was the gist of it all. It has sparked off a lot of interesting = trivia hasn't it!</DIV> <DIV>Regards</DIV> <DIV>Michael G (UK)</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=Erwinspiano@aol.com href="mailto:Erwinspiano@aol.com">Erwinspiano@aol.com</A> </DIV> <DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=pianotech@ptg.org href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A> </DIV> <DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 23, 2003 1:24 AM</DIV> <DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: Tonebell</DIV></DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV> <DIV>      <FONT size=3><STRONG>Robin</STRONG></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3><STRONG>      Excellent = info. Also, the 6ft. 1905 AB Chase that we rebuilt this year had a bell as well. The = piano, built like a tank, had no claims to any thing concerning the bell. If = the bell is such an incredible tonal device certainly it would have had a more = noticeable effect on tone which to my ear does not. It also torque's the rim which = could force the rasten/board joint to rotate out ward and there by upwards = also adds torque the board.</STRONG></FONT></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3>  Dale</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px = solid"><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3><STRONG>Dale,</STRONG></FONT><BR>Not to = make any new points as to what the tonebell nosebolt does, as I<BR>have already = done so, but a couple of interesting items.  Mehlin and<BR>Sons uses the = exact same nosebolt, or at least it appears so, in the<BR>corresponding = place on their larger grands and in the same manner.  The<BR>plate, as = others note, is substantially different than a that on a<BR>Steinway = suggesting some reason to question the observation that the<BR>bolt "mass-couples" the = rim to the plate.  Were this the case one would<BR>think that the = difference in plate and rim of Steinway and Mehlin would<BR>suggest a different "mass-coupling".  Yet, the one seen in Mehlins are<BR>virtually = identical to those of Steinway and, indeed, to my eye, appear<BR>to have been = produced by the same factory.  Incidentally, the larger,<BR>6'4" Mehlin = grand is, to my ear, another one of the number of great,<BR>unrecognized = American pianos.  I have not seen the nosebolt of the<BR>smaller c. 5 and = 1/2 ft grand.<BR>     Haynes uses a metallic nosebolt not at = all similar to those used on<BR>Steinway and Mehlin and attached passing = similarly through the plate yet<BR>attached not to the rim but to the bellyrail.   They use this even of<BR>their 5' 7" = piano.<BR>     Finally, just yesterday I looked at an old Kimball  = upright which<BR>had a similar stiffener comprised of an, apparently = cast,  metallic<BR>strip, perhaps   an inch or so wide and rather thick,  and containing a<BR>patent number,  which extended = on the back side of the soundboard<BR>downward from an attachment into the = back of the piano where the<BR>soundboard is glued in.  I would hazard a = guess that this pieces passes<BR>into the back here for a substantial distance.  It extends about eight<BR>or so inches, according to a = most cursory glance, downward from its<BR>attachment into the back at the = top of the board, and then supports a<BR>nut on a bolt which passes = transversely to it into a hole and through<BR>the soundboard, and, presumably, into = the plate.  .  I didn't take the<BR>time to open the case and = look at the fastening method to the plate but<BR>assume it is similar to the = bolt in the Steinway "bell".  I will see the<BR>piano again in a few days = and may have more observations.  Were one to<BR>take the number and read = the patent,  which I can provide I would almost<BR>be willing to bet = money that it will be seen in the description that the<BR>device is simply = to stabilize the plate, or, perhaps, allow a slight<BR>adjustment to = follow the moving board over time, their claims being<BR>similar to Steinway in = this regard.  No mention will be found of<BR>"mass-coupling" the rim = and plate.   I still can't imagine these types<BR>of  = nosebolts as having much effect on sustain unless they were  used = to<BR>compensate for downbearing changes.  Were the plate set correctly, the<BR>bridge = planed well, and the bearing acceptable, I don't believe it would<BR>make a significant difference.<BR>     However, as has been = discussed here in great detail, the board in<BR>this area may subsequently move, = perhaps significantly affecting<BR>downbearing.  These devices would then = afford the technician the option<BR>of carefully increasing the bearing = locally while allowing avoidance of<BR>the difficult, global approach of having to = reset the plate or recap the<BR>bridge.  Of course, this could be achieved = in some systems, at least for<BR>the rear bearing by changing the string rest = or plate.<BR>Regards, Robin Hufford</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" = color=#000040></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>