This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment My guess would be that the hockey stick bridge of that era sounded worse = - actually, my guess is that the transition bridge evolved before the = hockey stick bridge. Does anyone know?=20 1891 was what, 20 or 25 years after the first overstrung bass piano? I = would guess that there just hadn't been enough trial and error with the = stringing scales and matching soundboard design to these scales to = predictably produce good sounding bass/tenor break areas. And after all, = they needed to keep the bass section of the six-foot piano the same size = (number of notes) as the nine-foot piano, so that prevented them from = placing 28 or 32 notes on the bass bridge. I don't really understand the boundless reverence given to the = developers of pianos a hundred years ago. No doubt at all that many of = them were very intelligent, very creative, very inventive - hey, they = basically invented the modern piano. But just like the inventions of = electrical energy, modern medicine, space travel, etc., etc., just = because these were fabulous inventions made by brilliant people doesn't = mean that the basic inventions cannot be improved upon. My understanding is that most Stradivari and Guarneri violins in = professional use today have had significant modifications to them to = make them more consistent with what is expected of a modern violin = played in a modern orchestra (I'm really not sure what they do to them - = modified neck, bridges???). Only groups that specifically target making = music on period instruments might use one of these violins that even = resembles an original configuration. So if it is OK to modify these = instruments to produce what is generally considered to be a more = pleasing sound today, why is there so much resistance to modifying a = first-generation modern piano? As always, if one is targeting recreating a piano from 1890 because they = specifically wish to hear what a new piano from that era might have = sounded like, of course, that is a very legitimate direction to go. But = if you are trying to make the best piano you can, why blindly throw up = your hands and say that it is not possible to improve upon the work of = the "Original Masters"? Now before I get pummeled to death, understand = that I don't think change for the sake of change is necessarily good. = Have a good reason for making changes. Consult with those that know = about these kinds of things and have the experience. Terry Farrell ----- Original Message -----=20 From: St=E9phane Collin=20 To: Pianotech=20 Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 5:55 PM Subject: Re: Mason & Hamlin AA scale. Hi Mark and all. I run into the same third bridge problem on my 1891 Steinway A. It = sounds awful, while the rest sounds great. Pitty to hear that changing = for bichords instead of trichords didn't help much for the sound. I = feel I could possibly be ready to follow Terry F to the shop of Del F = and ask for redesinging. Does anyone know what the hell those splendid engineers of Steinway = had in mind when desinging that third bridge ? Regards, St=E9phane Collin. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mark Dierauf=20 To: pianotech@ptg.org=20 Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:52 PM Subject: RE: Mason & Hamlin AA scale. I did an old S&S A1 over with all bichords on the third bridge. It = still had that "third bridge" tenor sound, but at least the top 7 = bichords were 33% easier to tune! Plus they damped better. ;-) - Mark =20 -----Original Message----- From: Erwinspiano@aol.com [mailto:Erwinspiano@aol.com]=20 Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 12:01 AM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Mason & Hamlin AA scale. =20 To all esteemed scaleheads, I just received a AA for a complete rewhatevering & I'm very = unimpressed by the bass tenor break. This one is 1919 with 2 bichords & = 7 trichords. With all of our discussions about third bridges & such I'm = drawing the conclusion that this on is ill devised. Tonally it abysmal = to the ear. I learned from a friend who is doing another dated 1931 that = this vintage has all 9 transition notes in bichords. He & I have yet to = hear it as it's not done. I'm considering either switching to 9 bichords with the old bridge = but the string lengths seem dreadfully short. Does any one have the = string tension logged for this model. My guess is it would be = instructive.=20 The other option is to do away with most of it and use the small = piece that juts out toward the spine. Any body out there played with this model? My 1950s AA has one long bridge with 5 bichords. It could have = used 6 as note27 is wiry sounding. Kind of honky& low tensionish. I'll = know more when I run the scale. It's obviously a design that has been transitional. Any thoughts, Ideas? Dale=20 =20 Erwins Pianos Restorations=20 4721 Parker Rd. Modesto, Ca 95357 209-577-8397 Rebuilt Steinway , Mason &Hamlin Sales www.Erwinspiano.com ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/53/34/f1/46/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC