>Phil wrote: >>An engineering study is more interesting to me since it may yield >>results that are applicable to the real world. I think you had >>said before that you were going to share the findings with the >>world. Is that still the plan? > >Yes indeed. All the research results will eventually be published >and presented wherever appropriate. I look forward to it. >...These key points need to be answered as the starting point of a >new design: How much of the current design of a modern piano is >needed merely to accomodate the limitations of the materials and >methods being used to make it? What are the critical design aspects >that define the modern piano aesthetic? The latter are the things >you don't change. Everything else is fair game. Sounds right. How are you going to define or describe in measurable terms the modern piano aesthetic? > >[With trepidation: The pragmatist would say that the piano is really >just a complex machine and it ought to be possible to manufacture it >like one. But that most definitely doesn't apply to the current >design.] I hear what you're saying. But, with the limited extent of my knowledge of manufacturing methods in a factory like Yamaha's or Kawai's, I would say that they come close to manufacturing a piano like a machine. The result is a high degree of quality, but also a high degree of uniformity. If you put 10 Yamahas (just to use one manufacturer as an example) next to each other, there will be some difference, but not marked the way it would be with 10 Steinways. The differences in the Steinways result to some extent from the variations in the materials used, but perhaps more so from the manufacturing process which is fairly loosely controlled. The differences in the Yamahas is almost exclusively due to the variations in the materials used, since the manufacturing process is strictly controlled (as if making a machine). If research were to make, say, graphite soundboards acceptable, or polymer hammers acceptable, then the variations in materials could also be eliminated. Then one could come closer to the goal of making the pianos like machines, with every piano being exactly the same (within manufacturing tolerances). I'm not sure that is a desirable goal. >... >I should clarify the objectives of our group. The main focus is an >engineering investigation of the conventional piano. That's the >research where the grad students are involved. Traditional >engineering and conventional pianos. The re-engineering project is >independent and periperal to the research group, involving some >undergraduate engineering students who also have an interest in the >piano and/or music technology. I see. I wasn't clear that these were separate projects. >... >>I believe what our craft, and the pianistic world, needs is >>diversity of choice. > >Exactly. That's what CFT killed in 1869 when he forced Henry Jr's >design on the world. Diversity died in 1869. We need the Overs's, >Stuarts, Fazioli's, Fandrich's and so on to give some meaningful >choices instead of slavishly copying ancient designs. This is the >best way to rejuvenate the industry. > >>In other words, the availability of instruments with real individuality. > >Agree 100%. > >Stephen I'm not sure that the desire for availability of instruments with real individuality is consistent with the goal of efficiently manufacturing pianos as machines. Phil Ford
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC