Currier

[Greg Newell]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Del and all,
         I have changed the font and size of the paragraph below that is 
not mine. This is not a big point but, credit where credit is dues and all.



At 03:35 PM 9/5/2002, you wrote:
>Phil,
>
>I hope you don't mind--I've put this back on pianotech. The scans went out
>in two batches and it looks like there will be yet a third. I should have
>waited
>
>More comments below....
>
>Del
>------------------------------------------
>
> > From Greg Newell (I think)
> > Folks,
> >          These are some very interesting ideas. Some quick observations if
> > I may. While the sandwiching of  wood and steel may offer a structure that
> > is capable of handling the stresses we require of it I'm not so sure this
> > is the way to go. Does not this construction disallow any attempts at
> > rebuilding in the future? How would one replace a pin block here?
>
>One wouldn't. It's a disposable piano. Much like many of the pianos--both
>grands & verticals flooding the market just now.
>
> >
> > Also the
> > 20% larger soundboard area is not necessarily a good thing if more of it
>is
> > tone robbing without any sort of cut off bars or the like.
>
>It's not at all a good thing. But then, this was designed and built back in
>the days when it was still assumed that soundboards were "amplifiers" and
>bigger was better.
>
> >
> > I like the fact
> > that the ribs are crowned and therefor will hold a more permanent crowning
> > of the soundboard. The bridges still seems to be a little funky though. In
> > the center picture in the first attachment I see that the bass bridge is
> > still, at least partially, cantilevered. This seems to have resulted in a
> > very short back scale length in order for them to get their bragging
>rights
> > of a 62" long speaking length of A0. Who cares?
>
>The marketing department and the local salespeople care. Other than that, no
>one cares. Yes the backscale is too short and the bass bridge is
>cantilevered. Though, considering the type, not by much. Neither of these
>'features' is critical to the string panel concept and could easily be
>modified (at the factory).
>
> >
> > Also the long bridge seems to be split in two to allow for the heavy plate
> > strut.  This must have an interesting affect on the tone in that area.
> > The long bridge also appears to be very tall, if I'm getting the right
>picture
> > from the pictures.  I would be concerned about all that mass at the top
>end.
>
>Yes the long bridge was split. But, if you look at the picture of the back
>of the soundboard you will see a coupler. I don't recall that there was any
>particular tonal problem across this split, but I only saw the piano at a
>trade show and didn't have a chance to really evaluate the tone quality--or
>lack thereof. And yes the bridge was a bit on the tall side. The string
>panel was relatively thick.
>
> >
> > --- Other hype turned me off too but these are the first ones I saw. I
> > won't belabor all the points in the articles but I am happy that at least
> > the status quo is being challenged somewhat. Thoughts?
> >
> > Greg
>------------------------------
>
>
> From Phil Ford (I think):
>
> > 'Computer machined steel is sandwich or strata constructed in layers'.
> >
> > This makes it sound like they are laminating sheets of steel together.  I
> > wouldn't think that would be the case.  Why would you?  I think you would
> > machine the face plate to the thickness, or thicknesses if you wanted it
> > different thickness at different places, and bond it to the core.  Some of
>the
> > pictures made it look like the steel faces were on both sides of the core
> > (which is what I would expect) and others made it look like the steel face
>was
> > only on one side.  Maybe it was just the camera angle.
>
>It's camera angle. The construction was three-piece: the faces were sheet
>steel (about 1/16" [1.5mm] or 1/8" [3mm] thick--I don't remember exactly)
>bonded to what looked like MDF. The MDF was approximately 1-1/4" (32mm) to
>1-1/2" (38mm) thick. There was a separate steel bass hitchpin riser. In the
>one edge-on picture of the pinblock section what looks like a thick steel
>backing was a steel backing--it was probably needed to add stiffness across
>the tuning pin area.
>
> >
> > 'Many times the yield strength of conventional studios'.
> >
> > I found this hard to believe.  Cast iron is pretty strong in compression.
> > Most of the strength of this panel is from the steel face sheets, which
>are
> > relatively thin.  The plate struts are wide, so there is still a fair
>amount
> > of steel cross sectional area, but probably not much, if any, more than a
> > typical cast iron strut.
>
>According to the engineer I talked to there was 'far less' twisting going on
>while the backs were chipped to pitch. Compared to what--I don't know.
>
> >
> > 'Extra layers of steel within reinforce critical areas on the panel where
> > needed.'
> >
> > I assume this means that they have steel under the face plates in the
>areas of
> > the hitch pins, rather than having them driven into the wood core.
>
>No, mostly backing for the tuning pin area, as I recall.
>
> >
> > I notice also that the hitch pins for the bass section are on a separate
>block
> > which seems to be bolted onto the plate.
>
>Yes. For height.
>
> >
> > 'Wood product core'.
> >
> > I don't know what this means.  There's really no need for the core to be
>high
> > strength, so I would use the lightest and/or cheapest wood that I could.
>I
> > assume that they did the same.
>
>It means MDF.
>
> >
> > 'The structure allows the elimination of the conventional back frame and
> > posts'.
> >
> > This is a subject that has been discussed before.  This seems to assume
>that
> > the purpose of the frame is to help support string load.  I don't think
>that's
> > the case, so I don't see any less reason to have a back frame on this
>piano
> > than on a more conventional piano.
>
>The back assembly in most verticals does contribute to the overall rigidity
>of the assembly in that it keeps the plate from twisting. The actual string
>load is born by the plate.
>
> >
> > '15% more of the tuning pin to rest in the pinblock'.
> >
> > I don't see that as an advantage.  If that's all you want, then use a
>longer
> > tuning pin.  The advantage which they fail to mention is, since the face
>plate
> > appears to be thinnner than a typical casting, the distance of the string
>to
> > the top of the pinblock can be less, resulting in less tuning pin bending.
>
>Or, even better, an open-faced block.
>
> >
> > It wasn't clear to me from the pictures if the steel face plate over the
> > tuning pin holes is counterbored, so that the tuning pins are not
>contacting
> > the steel face, or if the hole is drilled through steel and pinblock and
>the
> > tuning pin driven in so that it's contacting both.
>
>Sorry, I don't remember.
>
> >
> > The tuning pins are nicely spaced out in the field of the plate, which is
>nice
> > from a structural standpoint.  But I believe Del indicated that this
>actually
> > caused a problem in service.  I tried to find an older e-mail on this
>subject
> > but couldn't lay my hands on it right away.  I believe that some of the
>treble
> > tuning pins being right next to the pressure bar and some being very far
>away
> > caused tuning problems.  Del?
>
>Other than fuss with a few unisons I did not actually tune one but was told
>by several that it made tuning quite difficult through the upper treble.
>
> >
> > One additional thing that I found interesting about this plate is that
>it's
> > gold.  Since this is supposed to be the latest high tech thing why not
>make it
> > look different?  Why try to make it look like a conventional piano plate?
>
>Tradition?
>
> >
> > 'Monolithic Construction'.
> >
> > I wasn't completely clear on what this was, but it sounds primitive (I
>think
> > the marketing department should have selected a different word).
>
>It was intended to indicate that all of the structural strength came from
>the string panel and did not depend on a separate back assembly. But, as you
>point out....
>
>Del

Greg Newell
mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/1d/0c/56/9a/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--