Fw: Tonebell

[Michael Gamble]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Hello Dale
I have to admit to starting this thread sometime back when I posed the =
query: I have found that the Tone Bell (Steinway's own term) is only =
present in those grands which have a Sos-ped. I have tuned many S&S =
which have no Sos-ped and none of them have a Tone-bell. Does the =
Tone-bell have any tonal effect or is it in some way a contributing =
factor in the use of a Sos-ped? Well, that was the gist of it all. It =
has sparked off a lot of interesting trivia hasn't it!
Regards
Michael G (UK)
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Erwinspiano@aol.com=20
To: pianotech@ptg.org=20
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 1:24 AM
Subject: Re: Tonebell


      Robin
      Excellent info. Also, the 6ft. 1905 AB Chase that we rebuilt this =
year had a bell as well. The piano, built like a tank, had no claims to =
any thing concerning the bell. If the bell is such an incredible tonal =
device certainly it would have had a more noticeable effect on tone =
which to my ear does not. It also torque's the rim which could force the =
rasten/board joint to rotate out ward and there by upwards also adds =
torque the board.
  Dale
  Dale,
  Not to make any new points as to what the tonebell nosebolt does, as I
  have already done so, but a couple of interesting items.  Mehlin and
  Sons uses the exact same nosebolt, or at least it appears so, in the
  corresponding place on their larger grands and in the same manner.  =
The
  plate, as others note, is substantially different than a that on a
  Steinway suggesting some reason to question the observation that the
  bolt "mass-couples" the rim to the plate.  Were this the case one =
would
  think that the difference in plate and rim of Steinway and Mehlin =
would
  suggest a different "mass-coupling".  Yet, the one seen in Mehlins are
  virtually identical to those of Steinway and, indeed, to my eye, =
appear
  to have been produced by the same factory.  Incidentally, the larger,
  6'4" Mehlin grand is, to my ear, another one of the number of great,
  unrecognized American pianos.  I have not seen the nosebolt of the
  smaller c. 5 and 1/2 ft grand.
       Haynes uses a metallic nosebolt not at all similar to those used =
on
  Steinway and Mehlin and attached passing similarly through the plate =
yet
  attached not to the rim but to the bellyrail.   They use this even of
  their 5' 7" piano.
       Finally, just yesterday I looked at an old Kimball  upright which
  had a similar stiffener comprised of an, apparently cast,  metallic
  strip, perhaps   an inch or so wide and rather thick,  and containing =
a
  patent number,  which extended on the back side of the soundboard
  downward from an attachment into the back of the piano where the
  soundboard is glued in.  I would hazard a guess that this pieces =
passes
  into the back here for a substantial distance.  It extends about eight
  or so inches, according to a most cursory glance, downward from its
  attachment into the back at the top of the board, and then supports a
  nut on a bolt which passes transversely to it into a hole and through
  the soundboard, and, presumably, into the plate.  .  I didn't take the
  time to open the case and look at the fastening method to the plate =
but
  assume it is similar to the bolt in the Steinway "bell".  I will see =
the
  piano again in a few days and may have more observations.  Were one to
  take the number and read the patent,  which I can provide I would =
almost
  be willing to bet money that it will be seen in the description that =
the
  device is simply to stabilize the plate, or, perhaps, allow a slight
  adjustment to follow the moving board over time, their claims being
  similar to Steinway in this regard.  No mention will be found of
  "mass-coupling" the rim and plate.   I still can't imagine these types
  of  nosebolts as having much effect on sustain unless they were  used =
to
  compensate for downbearing changes.  Were the plate set correctly, the
  bridge planed well, and the bearing acceptable, I don't believe it =
would
  make a significant difference.
       However, as has been discussed here in great detail, the board in
  this area may subsequently move, perhaps significantly affecting
  downbearing.  These devices would then afford the technician the =
option
  of carefully increasing the bearing locally while allowing avoidance =
of
  the difficult, global approach of having to reset the plate or recap =
the
  bridge.  Of course, this could be achieved in some systems, at least =
for
  the rear bearing by changing the string rest or plate.
  Regards, Robin Hufford
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/95/3e/74/aa/attachment.htm

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