The Steinway Bell Patent

[Ron Nossaman]

>It is curious that they chose to use it since a beam would probably be
>cheaper.  Perhaps marketing explains it, but I doubt CFT Steinway was that
>taken in by his own PR.

Maybe, but he surely would have known that the plate wasn't rising from the 
string tension there when the patent was applied for. He would also have 
noticed the difference in sustain when the nut was tightened, or he likely 
wouldn't have cared if the plate rose there or not. I think he found a fix 
for one problem and sold it as something else. I also wonder how big a deal 
was made of the magical properties of fanned bracing, converging on the 
horn. Adding another brace to support the killer octave nose bolt would 
have cast some doubt on the infinite wisdom of that arrangement. I suspect 
he was aware of that too. If the bell was added as an afterthought to 
improve sustain, which seems likely to me, it's certainly sexier than 
another wooden brace, and supplies some automatic mystique with the needed 
sound improvement. He got to fix a problem without acknowledging it 
existed, and got some considerable extra mileage out of the exotic nature 
of the fix. That would appeal to most any engineer I've ever met.


>I had an AB Chase concert grand that had a bell of a
>different design.  Similar to the Steinway bell but it spanned over to the
>belly rail, like a beam.  It was made of cast iron, was quite massive, and a
>nosebolt went down to it.  I was mystified as to why they chose to use this
>since it seemed to be serving the function of a beam, but would be more
>expensive (I would think).  Does the cast iron have some magical property that
>wood doesn't have for this application?  Could it perhaps be the mass?
>
>Phil F

May A B had a son in law with a foundry. I can't say for sure, but I would 
expect to be able to do at least as well with wooden bracing.

Ron N