---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment At 11:29 AM -0700 5/7/04, Don Mannino wrote: > >. . . Piano design is a matter of tradeoffs, and you know perfectly >well that when you improve one aspect you almost always detract from >another. Sometimes but not always. There are times when a change can be made without increasing production costs or detracting from other design objectives. When these conditions can be met there would seem, to me at least, to be no reason why a such a potentially positive design improvement should not be tried and assessed. > Sometimes the better design adds too much cost to fit a >manufacturer's target. Clearly this would need to be weighed up. But the matter about which we were discussing will cost nothing extra if it is incorporated at the time of redesigning a new model. I am convinced that the benefits are all positive, but you must be in disagreement on this matter. > Other times the benefit to the tuner is outweighed in the >designers mind by the drawback to the tonal balance. Indeed, but if it helps tuning stability and tonal balance why not give the idea a run? I contend that it helps both if the bridges are positioned appropriately on the board. >. . . In the case of the straight vs. dogleg tenor bridge, it would >be pointless to debate the relative merits of the individual points, >because you would simply continue to maintain that the logarithmic >tenor bridge is superior because those aspects of the design which >are important to you make is so. Indeed. If you don't mind pianos going out of tune more in relative terms, just because the weather has changed, the hockey stick will be just fine. But I find it pretty annoying when a client calls a fortnight after I tuned a piano, and the only reason the piano went out of tune was a low tension problem at the low end of the treble bridge. I lost a client once when I tried to explain that the tuning had gone out because the weather had changed. She thought I was making excuses for incompetence (the piano in question wasn't a Kawai). But it was very frustrating to have told the client what I understood to be an honest explanation, only to be dumped. > There can be no resolution to such a discussion. Not if you haven't experienced the problems associated with percentage of breaking strain variation, and its negative effect on tuning stability. Have you ever had a problem with a piano changing at the low treble due to percentage of breaking strain deviation? > >My views have not come about as some 'hair brained' idea dreamed >up last week. I have studied and reflected upon a range of different >instruments >over a period of more than fifteen years, gradually >building up a personal conviction, as to the merit of this scaling >approach. > >Why do you take a defensive position when I did not disagree with >your point? Who called this idea yours, or 'hair brained' ? I >said it is the design you prefer, not your invention. Sorry if I seem a bit prickly about this. Yes you are correct, in as much as you didn't actually say that the idea was hair brained. But you must admit that while you said you didn't disagree with my point, you qualified it by suggesting that there may be tradeoffs which I hadn't thought of. I invited you to put forward your suggestions as to what those tradeoffs might be. So far your suggestions have not been forthcoming. > >The second point of note, that all F21 notes are 183 cm, is simply >depressing. So you see, the boring state of affairs that you believe >we should >guard against is already with us. > >Yet listen to how completely different these pianos sound! Yes and No. > I assure you, each piano designer had complete freedom to change >the length of F21, and to move the break to a new location - but >each chose the same length for a reason. Yes obviously. But my feeling about why they chose to stay with this length has as much to do with cloning a 'standard'. You are free to disagree with me and many will. But I can't help feeling that there is, in the main, a deep seated fear of doing something new. In fact, I'll admit that I often carry this a deep seated fear about the instruments that I build. I often worry about the design conclusions I have come to, worrying that what seems to be a design advance might actually just be a figment of my biased imagination. But I sincerely believe that if we all hide behind safety and the Status Quo, the best interests of the evolution of this most interesting instrument will not be met. > I don't claim any magical figure - only that, for whatever reason, >it fit into the designs well. All three scales differ in other >areas - so why pick on the ends of the long bridges and say they >copied Steinway? Only because it serves your argument. Yes it does serve my argument, as you put it (the Yamaha CF 'bell' fits into the same category also). When I measured these various instruments I was quite shocked at the uniformity. Yes there are some small scaling variations in the mid section of the long bridge. However, to me it still looks like an attempt to 'rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic'. Look Don, this may seem like a jaundiced view to you, but I just can't agree that piano design should remain static over the decades when knowledge of tone building has deepened considerably over that same period. >I already stated that I have respect for what you are doing. Yes its true that you wrote it, but I'm not sure that you are convinced. >You may not be looking for respect from me personally, but if you >examine your motives honestly, you are most definitely posting to >this list frequently in the aim of gaining respect and exposure for >your pianos. When you don't bash others, I think you generally >succeed. Of course I'm trying to make a way in the world as manufacturer. But it is a very difficult road which largely controlled and managed by the big end of the industry. All the smaller players can hope to get is the crumbs that are left over. You are quite correct when you say that I should not bash others. I'm sorry if I got a bit towy over the cross over issue. But I have been a supporter of log scaling for a long time, and I get very frustrated at pianos going out of tune so severely when I feel convinced about primary reason for it. Especially when it seems such an easy problem to fix, but the industry just continues on merrily building to same old designs. >Do you recall when I (privately) expressed to you my opinions about >your action design? Yes. > You seemed to immediately close off and stop wanting to discuss >the details of my impressions, and thereafter assumed that I am >somehow against you. Possibly. Am I mistaken? > In other words, your attitude towards me reflected an extremely >closed attitude - just what you accuse other manufacturers of. It is true that many of us find criticism difficult to accept. I am not immune from this human failing. Maybe I am just as capable of being closed. I certainly recall your comments re our action. After playing no. 3 for just a minute or two at Reno you said that the friction was too low. While you are not the only player who has expressed this opinion, your view would seem to be in the minority. I acknowledge that I did not choose to continue with the discussion. However, please understand that if more than a small percentage of commentators felt that the action was too free, I would have done something about it. But a great majority have reported that the action has, to them, improved dynamics. Some do need to play it more than once to come to this view, but only a few would agree with your assessment. I realise that you are a competent pianist, but you also are in the employ of a company who understandably does not encourage competitors. Therefore, I do hope you understand that I am, as a consequence, less inclined to give your opinion the weight that it otherwise might have had if you were not tied to another manufacturer. Please understand that if I bent over backwards and changed my action every time someone offered a criticism, it would be in a continual state of flux. A very good friend, colleague, competent pianist and competent concert technician (I know its a lot of different talents to fit into one body but it seems to be the case) has been on my back ever since Reno to increase the friction of my action by increasing the knuckle diameter. He has also been at me get rid of the helper springs. After another two pianos, I have kept the knuckle diameter at 9 mm but conceded to build 4 and 5 without wippen assist springs. He and I now agree that this latest version has, by far, the best dynamic combination so far (this is also consistent with the feed back we are getting from the Sydney Conservatorium of Music staff and students). So I gave in on the wippen assist springs and held out on the knuckle size. David Kinney now agrees that I was right to resist the knuckle change. I also admit that the action is working better than ever, so he must have been right about the assist springs. I am not totally unresponsive to opinion, but similarly, responding to every breeze is a not way forward. >You brought up the bridge caps - the relative merits of bridge cap >grain orientation is a perfect example of the validity of differing >opinions. I am not at all convinced by your arguments that quarter >sawn bridge caps are unconditionally superior. My understanding is that Kawai are now quarter cutting their bridge caps. Are you therefore saying that they might not be cutting their caps with the most desirable grain orientation? > Flat sawn caps give better pitch stability in climates with a wide >humidity range, and tend to keep the tone quality more consistent >during very dry conditions. Maybe, but I would have thought the movement in the panel with climate changes would have a far greater tuning stability impact than a change in bridge dimensions. > The hardness and grain structure of the maple chosen is more >critical when using flat sawn bridge caps, but if the wood is >chosen well it will function flawlessly for years, and will gain the >benefits I mentioned. It might, but it will be more likely to be subject to mechanical failure if back sawn. > With quarter sawn, the bridge pins holes tend to stay tighter over >time, but this also varies with wood quality and pin size and angle. Yes. >So which approach is superior? Depends on what aspects of the >design you prefer - in your case (along with others), quarter sawn >caps are preferred and work better for you. Primarily because experience has taught me that I'm less likely to be called upon to change a bridge under warranty if the cap is quarter cut. > In others, flat sawn is preferred. > >Is it valid to publicly berate a manufacturer for preferring one >design over another? You might think so, but I respectfully >disagree. I don't know Don. I think I should spend more time building the designs I have drawn, and less time contributing to the list. There's probably little to gain from contributing. Ron O. -- OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY Grand piano manufacturers ________________________ Web: http://www.overspianos.com.au Email: mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au ________________________ ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/48/3e/28/b8/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC