Del and list, >. . . . . . . >The Fandrich 122 had a 32 note bass section with 12 mono-chords and 20 >bi-chords, all on the bass bridge. If there is another version of this piano >it will use the same string layout--i.e., 32 unisons on the bass bridge--but >will use 14 mono-chords and 18 bi-chords. I presume you meant to type "32 notes on the bass bridge" - and not ". . unisons . . ". >No. There are no "good" verticals using plain steel strings down to C-28. At >least not verticals of 52" or less. Nor will there be. At least not if by >"good" you mean pianos having reasonably smooth and consistent bass/tenor >crossovers. > >Del Well said Del - I totally agree. Good on you for having the courage to go where most designers fear to tread. If only 'the crowd' would place the cross over where it yields the best results, instead of where the sales people think it should go, or where it's been for the past century. Let's get off the tradition treadmill and incorporate new ideas where they are proving to be the better way. This abhorrent trend of certain makers building their instruments allegedly to that of the original design, just because of some myth that 'they did it right' back then whenever that was, makes my mind boil over. It's regressive advertising garbage. Especially after the interesting piano exhibits at Reno, where I noticed one manufacturer who is making much of this philosophy, yet the so-called traditional piano I tried from this maker had perhaps one of the worst tonal changes over the crossover that I have heard to date. Clearly, whether the scale in question was drafted back in 1900 or whether it was done just yesterday, the designer hasn't got a clue. Anyhow, what's so wrong with doing a new design when compared to sticking with tradition? Today, we have every bit as much intelligence and creative ability as the generations which have gone before, but we have the added advantage of a better understanding of material science, and the aid of a useful analytical tool in the form of a computer. No, the new product is not computer designed - the advertisements are wrong. Computers are just dumb machines. The new product was designed by a capable designer with the aid of a computer. Unfortunately a large majority of 'modern' designs demonstrate a complete lack of understanding on the part of the designer. While there were a couple of pianos exhibited at Reno which had a truly modern scales (the Blüthner 7'8" was very impressive with a bass/treble cross at A#26/B27 which sounded as good as it looked) I didn't see any decently scaled verticals. Most designers still seem to be content with the retention of the totally outdated hockey stick end treble bridge. Will it be 2101 before we see the last of these scaling disasters in a new piano? One of the high end grands exhibited at Reno had a 'hockey stick' which was only 'designed' only two years ago (I asked the factory technician). What a regrettable situation, that we should be emulating the designs of 1902 pianos with 2002 equipment. My hat's in - Go! Ron O -- Overs Pianos Sydney Australia ________________________ Web site: http://www.overspianos.com.au Email: mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au ________________________
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC