Inharmonicity

[Delwin D Fandrich]

Ron Nossaman wrote:

> The problem here, as I see it, is that what we KNOW today is different and,
> presumably better, than what we KNEW yesterday. What we KNOW tomorrow will
> just as likely make us a little embarrassed with what we thought we KNEW
> today. Admiring as we may be of the clever methods of yesterday's
> technology, we tend to think our present state of semi-ignorance is somehow
> more exalted than the state of semi-ignorance our predecessors labored
> under. Occasionally, we will pick up a piece of "outdated" information that
> is so elegant, obvious, and beautiful that we wonder how it could been the
> by-product of this miasma of witchcraft, genius, and dumb luck that is our
> individual perception of the state of the art of piano engineering. Also,
> why didn't I think of that?

This is just one of the reasons why I think that it would be good for piano designers and engineers
to spend some time rebuilding old ones. That is, old ones of different manufacture than those of the
company for which they work. While several of the piano engineers that I have worked with over the
years have had a very good knowledge of the older pianos that had been built by their own companies,
none have had a knowledge of those built by other companies. Especially those by companies that are
no longer in business. Rebuilding old pianos can be quite educational.

> >Besides, I remain convinced that one of the most formidable obstacles to the
> >ongoing development of the piano is not the designer, or even that obstinate and disgustingly
> >practical manufacturer, it is the piano technician in the field who is unwilling to accept
> anything
> >new in his favorite instrument. I've sat through too many meetings in which what I thought were
> good
> >ideas were set aside because of concern that they, no matter how good the end result, the product
>
> >would not be accepted by piano technicians and that the resulting criticism would hurt the
> product's
> >sales potential. Now, I'll be the first to admit that not every new idea or concept that has been
>
> >introduced into the marketplace has been perfect. In fact, some of them have been rather
> disastrous.
> >But, the only way to avoid making any mistakes at all is to do nothing. And that is the biggest
> >mistake of all.
>
>
> I don't understand this one. Maybe I haven't been paying attention (it's
> happened before). Don't I read right here on this list, messages from techs
> applauding the tonal quality, action response, tuning stability, and
> tunability of high quality instruments and grunching about the lack of these
> qualities in low-end instruments? Most of us probably wouldn't notice a new
> scale design, different rib placement, bridge configuration, or
> modifications in action design unless it was pointed out to us. What we
> would notice is the overall improvement in the instrument. It tunes better.
> It sounds better. It feels better. Why? Most of us probably wouldn't know,
> or possibly even care, but we certainly wouldn't gripe about it to
> prospective purchasers. By all means, spoil me! Personally, I'm all for any
> changes that make a piano a better piano. If you are talking about changes
> radical enough to put the instrument onto a category other than that of
> "piano", then it's a moot point. Maybe a little clarification. What sort of
> changes do you mean?

Two that come quickly to mind are plastic parts in piano actions and laminated panel soundboards.
Now, before everybody screams at me about plastic elbows and Story & Clark mahogany soundboards, let
me assure you that I am very familiar with the problems of each. Let me also point out that I have
suffered through the development of tubeless tires, fuel injection, emission controls, color TV
CRT's, DOS, Windows 1.0, early Apples and Mac's, and enough other technological changes to know that
not every great idea is born fully developed and refined. None of those things worked very well when
they were first introduced but we're mostly happy with them today. Personally, I applaud those few
brave manufacturers who have endured the criticism and pushed ahead with the development of plastic
action parts. For many (though not all) action parts, there are several different plastics that are
much more suitable as an engineering material than is wood. And if you think it is too late for
laminated soundboards, think again. The world is running out of musical instrument grade spruce.
Period. Dot. No matter the species. The remaining supply could be extended indefinitely with the
development of high-performance laminated soundboard panels, but that won't happen. These days, even
the very low-end grand piano manufacturers are afraid to use them. And I'll not accept that it can't
be done. I've built several pianos with laminated soundboards that outperformed their solid board
counterparts.


> Bottom line on my original post is that I don't consider engineers to be
> useless except as a potential source of protein. Quite the contrary. I daily
> enjoy the fruits of their labors and depend on the realization of their
> brainstorms for my basic survival. I envy some of them their jobs, brains,
> and toys. The whole point was to try to illustrate that the modern piano is
> not the culmination of a linear evolutionary process any more than a modern
> engineer knows everything that all the engineers preceding him knew. It
> isn't cumulative.
>
> Regards back to you,
>
> Ron Nossaman

Well, perhaps it is more cumulative than you may be allowing for...its just that is is only
cumulative within each specific company. In most industries, when one company comes out with a good
idea all of the others scramble to either copy it of develop around it. This used to happen in the
piano industry as well prior to, say, the 1930's or so. But no longer. Just one example of this is
the vertical hitch pin developed by Baldwin. It has several demonstrable benefits, both acoustically
and in manufacturing. Yet, although It has now been out of patent and in the public domain for some
years now no other grand piano manufacturer except for the new Walter uses it. (And it's there only
because I put it there when I designed the piano.)

No, the modern engineer cannot know everything that his/her predecessors knew. But if they want to
they can know a lot of it. (Including what went wrong with plastic elbows and what was wrong with
Story & Clark soundboards.) And they can use that knowledge if they want to and are allowed to.

Regards,

Del