Joe It's not just the string scaling but also a downbearing problem.I've had two clients with instability problems so great that I looked elsewhere and found that the downbearing was both negative, positive and non- existent in the same piano. Yamaha was quick to replace these at my request once the problem was isolated. Of course I have always found Yamaha to be more than helpful and timely in these matters. In fact , I determined the problem on one of these on the very last week(day) of it's ten year warranty and it was a replaced with an upgraded G-1 model plus a bit of cash from the client and it was a done deal within weeks. (they didn't ask for a second opinion either) The new one is in the same location as the old and the tuning stability is like a rock. Thanks again to Yamaha for Corp. integrity and demonstrating true public relations! Dale Erwin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Garrett" <joegarrett@earthlink.net> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 8:01 PM Subject: Re: Scaling problem > Ron, > Initially, when I first bumped into the problem, with the first GH1, I was > told, by Yamaha, that the "G" stands for grand and the "H" stands for home. > The original design was INTENDED for those buyers who want a grand in their > home and don't play! That's paraphased, but the intention no the less. The > whole problem, as I see it, is that the piano is so inexpensive that > musicians picked up on it and expected it to be an adequate instrument just > because it's a grand. The original one had no bracing between the rim and > the belly rail. Needless to say, it was squirlier than hell! They've since > added a brace, but for some darned reason they chose not to fix the scale. > My opinion is that it's a good place to use up their rejects and seconds. > Regards, > Joe > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Nossaman" <RNossaman@KSCABLE.com> > To: <pianotech@ptg.org> > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 6:16 PM > Subject: Re: Scaling problem > > > > > > > > > > I've had some partial success with carefully doping the hammers, and > > > voicing the bass down, plus leveling strings, straightening termination > > > points etc., but not to any totally satisfactory result. > > > Got any good advise? I'm all ears. > > > > > > Or is it just poor design? > > > > > > > > > Kevin E. Ramsey > > > <mailto:ramsey@extremezone.com>ramsey@extremezone.com > > > > > > > > Kevin, > > I'm a long way from being a scaling sage, but I'll vote poor design with > Joe. > > The only claims I've heard for improving the problem with voicing are from > > Roger Jolly, but he's just blowing steam. Sorry Roger, couldn't help > myself. > > <G> A couple of years ago, tuning a GH1B for a dealer, I was tired enough > of > > the lousy low tenor that I took a little extra time and got some > measurements > > from the piano to check them out on my scaling spreadsheet. I measured > core, > > wrap, and speaking length of notes 24-31, with the break being at 26/27. I > > found the original break% of #26 at 54%, and #27 at 21%. Tension, > > inharmonicity, and impedance were just about that smooth across the break > too. > > I played around with the scaling numbers at the transition and ended up > with a > > reasonable (not good, but reasonable) break with the original speaking > lengths. > > I substituted four bichord unisons in the low tenor and it looks like it > would > > help. A break% of 54 at #26, and 45% at #27, with a smoother tension, > > impedance, and inharmonicity curve would about have to help some. While I > agree > > with Ron O that this is a far less than ideal configuration, I was curious > to > > see how close I could come aurally. Unfortunately, I don't have a GH1B to > try > > it out on, so I can't say for sure what the results would be. My > impression was > > that this can't be really fixed with the original bridges, only made less > bad - > > and that with more modifications than just changing some strings. Starting > at > > the drawing board, I'd want to put the break at #31 or #32 in the first > place > > in a piano this size, but for some reason Yamaha chose a lower point in > the > > scale. I didn't see anything particularly obvious to make me suspect > soundboard > > problems. It does seem to be the scale that's the primary problem. > > > > Now what I want to know, given the obvious wretched sound of these things > > across the break, where did this scale design come from in the first > place? I > > don't see how it could have been "designed" this way and been allowed out > the > > door after hearing the results. Who does Yamaha's scaling, and why can't > they > > fix this themselves? > > > > I don't buy the story that the GH has to sound bad to sell the C at the > higher > > price. If it was supposed to sound lousy, they wouldn't be contracting > these > > scaling fixes from independent techs. > > > > > > Ron N >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC