<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: Hamamatsu Museum of Instruments</title></head><body> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Stéphane Collin wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">Do I see right, in the picture, that the note at the left side of the srut seems to have a shorter speaking length than the note at the right (or am I fooled by the persepctive of the pic) ?  And that at the right of the strut, choirs have three same speaking length, while at the left the three speaking length per choir are different (as Dale pointed out) ?</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">Makes me think (like the limited range of front duplex) that they didn't like monotonous uniformity of sound all over the scale, back then.</font><br> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>I think the picture is fooling you on that point.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>It isn't Richard, Stéphane's observation is correct about the rotation. He may also be right about the maker trying to create noise. The manufacturer is unlikely to provide an explanation, since openness is not part of their policy. Go back the image and have a look at the notches adjacent to the plate strut between the top two string sections. Clearly the notches on the treble side have been aligned square to the nominal speaking length of the trichord group, whereas those on the bass side of the strut have their bridge pin groups rotated clockwise. This was quite common on Steinways of the period. They don't do it today, so clearly they have changed their mind about its perceived merit.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite> Tho when I go back in October I can take a few more shots to give a better view.  You are right about the top section unisions all having the same length and the left side having different tho.  Well, like I said at the outset... you fellows that are actually building these things have probably seen this all many times before... it just struck me as something I hadnt noticed, and so I thought I'd ask about it.</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br> Cheers<br> RicB</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Sure seems like a wonderful way of building further unwanted noise into an instrument. Who knows what logic they might have been considering? They may have felt it important for each unison string to have a uniform strike ratio with the hammer. If they were trying to satisfy such a desire, it would have required that the bridge pin groups be rotated as they are in these instruments. Its just speculation of course. This company doesn't even allow the factory workers into the thinking behind their designs. So its not surprising that myths abound everywhere with regard to this maker.</div> <div><br></div> <div>I can't see the sense in recreating this layout when notching new bridges. As Dale mentioned in a previous post, just set the group parallel to the capo. This, of course, will mean that the group should be rotated just slightly anticlockwise from square to the string angle. But it is necessary if your goal is to set the unison group with the same speaking length.</div> <div><br></div> <div>An interesting point about bridge dog-legs. During our many discussions while Ron Nossaman was visiting last week, this topic came up. I have always believed that allowing the dog-leg to extend down to the bridge footprint is undesirable. Ron N has done some testing with a laser which, to him, indicates that allowing the dog-leg to extend right to the panel is unimportant. I have done no testing, having relied only on my own thinking about the dynamic situation of the moving/flexing bridge. So on this matter at present we disagree in theory. I don't have answers on this one since a hunch is not knowledge, so I now have another question which I need to clarify to my satisfaction if possible. Certainly, manufacturers do move the bridge pin groups to the bridge edges as the scale layout approaches struts to minimise the dog-leg severity. But some manufacturers<font color="#0000FF"> (who should know better)</font> care little if the speaking length is allowed to vary wildly as the bridge passes under the strut. Sure it allows the maker to use a straight bridge without a dog-leg, but it allows for all sorts of tuning stability problems to creep into the picture. We design our bridges with the bridge pin field using to width of the bridge cap to advantage<font color="#0000FF"> (to minimise the dog-leg)</font>, while setting the contact of the bridge to panel using a spring lathe when rebuilding to achieve a smooth contact line between the bridge and panel. We do not compromise the speaking lengths of notes adjacent to plate struts, in an attempt to make bridges easier to manufacture. To me, there's not much to be gained by arriving at a suitable string scale for a design, then allowing the scale integrity to go-with-the-dogs in the name of expediency.</div> <div><br></div> <div>I suppose much reasoning will depend on a company's motive for manufacturing pianos in the first place. Is the primary goal the creation of a first rate piano, or is it that of a marketing company who finds itself compelled to manufacture pianos to satisfy the demand created by the brochures and spin? This can be an interesting question. Some time ago I repaired a very early Blüthner grand from around 1860<font color="#0000FF"> (the piano was water damaged while in storage and we just replaced some veneer and coloured it up as instructed - the storage company wasn't concerned about the sticking dampers and a host of other worries - and on this occasion it certainly didn't bother me, because the piano was a disaster everywhere, but interesting nonetheless)</font>. Now Blüthners have a reputation for being a carefully made piano, but I couldn't believe how sloppily this piano was put together. Clearly Julius must have been mindful of the necessity to make a quick buck when he started out. The 230 grand I saw at Reno in 2001 was very carefully built.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Ron O.</div> <x-sigsep><pre>-- </pre></x-sigsep> <div><font face="Times New Roman" size="+1" color="#0000FF"><b>OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY</b></font></div> <div><font color="#000000"><i>   </i></font><font color="#0000FF"><i>Grand Piano Manufacturers</i></font><font color="#000000"><br> _______________________</font></div> <div><font size="-2" color="#000000"><br> </font><font color="#000000">Web http://overspianos.com.au</font></div> <div><font color="#000000">mailto:info@overspianos.com.au<br> _______________________</font></div> </body> </html>