<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: Killer Octave Question</title></head><body> <div>At 08:43 PM 4/9/2003, Ed Foote wrote:</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Greetings,</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>   The killer octave is usually supported by the section of belly rail that</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>is farthest from buttressing.  The normal connection of the plate to the</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>belly rail at the plate's "horn" provides resistance to outward movement, and</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>the rails connection to the case at the treble end, likewise.  However, the</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>ribs that must support crown under the killer octave bear against the</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>bellyrail at its greatest unsupported span and it just might be one reason</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>that this section of the piano loses its bearing first.  (The rib under the</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>C5 on a Steinway O meets the bellyrail approx. halfway between the plate horn</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>and the treble end of the rail).</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>   Many other reasons could go into the equation, too.</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Ed Foote RPT</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>At 11:31 PM -0400 9/4/03, Greg Newell wrote:</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Ed,</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>        This is interesting. I've never heard this take on the problem before but it seems logical and worth some consideration. Anyone else have thoughts about this particular line of reasoning?</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Greg Newell</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>I also am of the view, that not all of the beams should collect at the 'tone collector'. The idea of leaving the belly rail relatively unsupported adjacent to the mid-treble would seem to be poor design - regardless of the fact that almost all in the 'top end of town' are doing it.</div> <div><br></div> <div>John Hartman's post about the higher loading in the treble<font color="#0000FF"> (since there are more unison strings per unit of bridge length)</font> relative to the lower treble and bass is an excellent point also.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Regards,</div> <div>Ron O.</div> <x-sigsep><pre>-- </pre></x-sigsep> <div>_______________________<br> <br> OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY<br> Grand Piano Manufacturers<br> <br> Web: http://overspianos.com.au<br> mailto:info@overspianos.com.au<br> _______________________</div> </body> </html>