Steinway 40"

[Delwin D Fandrich]

pianoman wrote:
> 
> Dear list,
> Yesterday I wrote about the tuning inconsistencies of tuning a 40"
> Steinway. The FAC tuning will not allow the middle to come out right
> and using the original stretch tuning measuring F-4 does a little better
> but it still has to be doctored with the wound strings in the lower treble.
> In the 45" pianos the tuning inconsistencies are almost as bad. I have
> only tuned 1 new K and it seemed to tune very well.
> In tuning these pianos I am struck by the very long distance between the
> bottom of the pressure bar and where the string actually starts its'
> speaking length. It looks like double the distance of most other pianos
> and I was wondering if anyone knew why the design is as such. Would this
> longer unspeaking length contribute towards the instability that others
> have said exists?
> James Grebe
> R.P.T. from St. Louis
> pianoman@inlink.com
> "A MAN IS LIKE A PIECE OF STEEL- HE IS NO GOOD IF HE LOSES HIS TEMPER"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

James, 

Yes, that’s at least part of the problem. That and the very shallow
string deflection angle across the V-bar. I did a lot of prep work on
these during the 70’s and became quite familiar with them. I remember
one run of 45” pianos with such a shallow string deflection angle that I
could easily lift the strings off of the V-bar with a stringing hook.
The original designers tried to get some of the effect of the “tuned
aliquot” string termination system in these pianos, especially so in the
45”—it shows up in the Model K as well—but it obviously doesn’t work
very well.

Both the 40” and the 45” pianos could have been quite good pianos with
just a bit of redesign—actually, in the case of the 45” piano, that is
still true. A better string termination system, an improved stringing
scale and a new rib scale with relocated soundboard cut-off bars makes a
world of difference in this piano.

—ddf