Piano Design Question

[Michael Gamble]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Hello Terry and List
I think you are going back to the drawing board Broadwood used in the =
mid 1800's. The grand they provided for Beethoven would be a good =
starting point. There is so much data to be construed out of that piano =
and interpolated with modern conventions such as Bessemer processed =
steel strings for strength and modern cast frame. In the Beethoven piano =
the frame was "constructed" as was most of the Broadwood pianos up to =
the one (No.857) I had. Chickering it was, I believe, who first used a =
cast frame. Broadwoods (and others) quickly followed. Broadwoods =
developed the "barless" grand frame which permitted of a continuous =
bridge up to the bass/tenor break. This was, however, an otherwise =
standard overstrung piano. Terry is, I take it, trying to break with =
convention and develop a new approach to grand construction using a =
style derived from that early Broadwood concept. One may ponder the =
possibilities here of such a concept - the vast length, the innovative =
scaling using the modern steel-cored single covered (please!)bass and =
steel treble strings. Include the possibility of quatro stringing as did =
Broadwood at one time. Even the "bent side" concept could be scrapped in =
favour of a triangulated plan. Let me throw in an idea here based on a =
small Harpsichord sitting at this moment under my S&S"A". All the =
stringing is "parallel" but the bass strings instead of running parallel =
to the direction of the keys, are at an angle to them. The "spine" is =
still along the bass strings side and the open side with its prop on the =
treble end, but the keys are at, maybe, 45deg. to the spine. The =
pianist's hands will be seen by the audience even if the piano spine is =
parallel to the cyclorama.  Bizarre? Well... why not?
Go on from there!
Regards from a dusky and balmy evening in the Downland Village.
Michael G.(UK)

----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Farrell=20
  To: Pianotech=20
  Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 2:08 PM
  Subject: Re: Piano Design Question


  Hi Richard - Perhaps I did not make my question clear enough. I think =
your answer targeted conventional piano design. I'm trying to step out =
of the box. I am asking about designing a piano with no limits on size =
or shape. As such, overstringing to maximize bass string length has no =
merit - just make the piano longer if you want a longer bass string. =
Also, putting the bass bridge in the center of the board also looses its =
meaning, because you can make the case any size or shape you want - so =
even if the bass bridge is down at one end of the scale, you can stretch =
the case (make it bulbous if you want) down there and provide the bass =
bridge with any amount of soundboard area you find advantageous.=20



  And BTW, with a conventional piano design, I don't know that =
maximizing the length of bass strings is so singly important. I think =
more important is to achieve a good compromise between length and =
mobility (i.e. and looooong bass string with a 5mm backscale won't do =
any piano any good).=20



  Terry Farrell



  Richard Cromwell wrote:

  In my minimal studies of piano design the benefits that overstrung =
scales provide over a straight scale are pretty simple

  =20

  Overstringing maximizes the length of the bass strings while being =
able to position the bass bridge closer to the center/most flexible part =
of the soundboard.



  This is important as the amplitude of the lower frequencies produced =
by the bass strings move the board more and thus benefit from the =
additional throw available closer to the center.  I am not going to =
bother to go into why maximizing the length of the bass strings is =
important, because if you don't know. you shouldn't be reading this. I =
think that the designers of old felt that the substantial benefits =
yielded in the quality of tone produced in the bass section of the piano =
by overstinging far outweigh any resulting deficiencies (which there are =
of course) in the tenor or anywhere else for that matter. which makes =
sense to me.

  =20


    =20
    To those who delve into piano design (and loose sleep over such =
things)......

    =20

    My understanding is that the bass/tenor area of the typical modern =
grand piano soundboard poses a challenge from the design standpoint =
because in pretty much the same location you want a very flexible =
soundboard for the bass and a stiffer soundboard for the lower tenor. =
This necessitates compromise.

    =20

    Yes - is that true?

    =20

    Wouldn't a straight-strung arrangement work better? Seems to me that =
designing a piano with performance being the #1 criteria, a straight =
strung (or parallel or whatever - you know what I mean) arrangement =
would offer the designer the luxury of designing the soundboard to meet =
the needs of the various sections of the string scale - and not having =
to make the same area suit two different needs.=20

    =20

    Now keep in mind that I ask this question strictly from the =
performance (musical) standpoint and not the standpoint of how well a =
design might sell. I believe it is the case that one can design a piano =
with longer bass strings for a given piano length with an overstrung =
design - if the marketing department is put in charge of piano design. =
I'm talking about eliminating the marketing department and the =
accounting department and just dealing with how to build the most =
acoustically pleasing piano. (I know, silly idea.) Now rememeber - no =
marketing - we can make the case ANY shape we want (we don't have to =
have a flat side on the bass side)!

    =20

    Without having to concern yourself with factory sales, would you =
rather design a straight-strung or overstrung piano? Which approach give =
the designer more freedom to design an optimal piano?

    =20

    Thanks. Tomorrow in the shop will pivot on this.....    ;-)

    =20

    FWIW: Seems to me that straight-strung offers significant design =
benefits because each area of the string scale occupies a unique area of =
the soundboard - and hence that area of the soundboard can be designed =
to optimize the performance of that area of the string scale.

    =20

    Terry Farrell

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/73/64/9f/92/attachment.htm

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