[CAUT] Humidity, Bridge caps, pitch drift

Fred Sturm fssturm at unm.edu
Mon Jun 29 21:38:53 MDT 2009


Hi Ed,
	Very familiar symptoms. I think the bridge notching pattern is  
something interesting to consider, but not necessarily determinative.  
The same symptoms occur on pianos where the notching doesn't move on  
the bridge (generally on those pianos, there is a bend in the bridge  
at the strut).
	It is very puzzling to me that Baldwin 243s (Hamiltons) have a  
reverse symptom at the strut: pitch change gets higher approaching the  
strut from below, then pitch is closer to standard above the strut. I  
don't think I have run across any other piano that does that.
	I've been tossing around possible explanations for over 20 years now,  
and don't have one that works yet, other than scaling issues (lengths  
of strings and relative tensions, with a jog in tension over the strut  
- but this wouldn't seem to affect as many unisons as are affected).  
One thing I will try to find time for is to check for any measurable  
difference in DB via the Wixey gauge, which is more sensitive than  
anything I have measured with before (and easier to use). I guess  
measuring the relative cant of the bridge top would be good as well,  
in case it changes relative to front and back angles of the string.
	The new Mason A I just touched up for a customer this evening (had  
tuned it three weeks ago) was over 10 cents sharp at the bottom of the  
treble bridge (plain wires), tapering to pitch at the strut, then a  
little over 5 cents sharp above the strut, tapering to pitch within  
about an octave. And virtually all treble side (right) strings in  
excess of a cent sharp of the left strings, often 5 cents difference.  
Again, very familiar pattern. RH had risen from about 20% to 45% in  
the meantime. Piano has a full Dampp-Chaser system. A string cover is  
on order. Keeps us in business, but it's annoying anyway.
	Ron N's notions about bridge caps (epoxy saturated) reducing this  
pitch drift are tantalizing, but don't help with existing pianos. I  
have thought of experimenting with one of my Yamaha G-2s, trying to  
saturate portions of the bridges with extra thin CA to see if that  
might help. My notion is to remove bridge pins, more or less fill the  
hole with thin CA, wait a wee bit for penetration, then drive in pins.  
I'd do this when it is nice and dry, so setting up of the CA would be  
extra slow (as it is here in winter). But too many other priorities  
have kept me from trying yet.
	A thought that has occurred to me is that the movement of the SB in  
response to RH change (the swelling that occurs and subsequent changes  
under the load of the strings and various other forces) actually  
shifts the bridges sideways relative to the plate. One piece of  
evidence is the tendency of bass bichord dampers to miss damping one  
of the strings (consistently) on new pianos moved to this dry climate.  
I don't think that the piano sitting on its side during shipping or  
storage explains it. I suspect the SB moves the guiderail relative to  
the strings (ie, agraffes and plate) when it dries (well, SB in  
conjunction with the belly rail and the rest of the wooden structure -  
in any case, things are shifting positions relative to one another in  
response to RH change).
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu



On Jun 26, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Ed Sutton wrote:

> Here's the pattern I saw on a 5'2' grand piano:
>
> On the long bridge, in each section, the leftward bridge notches  
> terminate the speaking length in the middle of the bridge. As the  
> scale ascends, the notches progress toward the front of the bridge.  
> Crossing the gap at the plate strut, the notches start again at the  
> middle of the bridge, and step forward again to the front edge. At  
> the next strut, the same thing happens.
>
> The piano was humidity struck. At the leftward end of each section,  
> where the strings terminate at the center of the bridge, pitch was  
> 10-15 cents sharp. As the scale progressed toward the front of the  
> bridge, the pitch drift became less, and was almost at pitch as the  
> notches came close to the front edge.
>
> This pattern was repeated in each section.
>
> Why?
>
> Ed S
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20090629/8dd0ced3/attachment.htm>


More information about the CAUT mailing list

This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC