Bass Bridge Position-upright

[Greg Newell]

Fenton,
That's some nice looking work. Probably better than the old upright
deserved. I'm curious. Why did you go for THAT MUCH backscale. My opinion
would be that the backscale of those old monsters was long enough but the
move to a directly contacting bass bridge would be a positive one. It seems
from the picture that simply removing the cantilevered apron would still
have put the bridge in a good spot. I can't really tell but it seems that
the bridge, in its original spot, is something like 5 or 6" away from the
edge of the board. Could you share more of your thought process in making
these changes?

All the best,
Greg 

Greg Newell
Greg's Piano Forté
www.gregspianoforte.com
216-226-3791 (office)
216-470-8634 (mobile)

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Fenton Murray
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 1:14 AM
To: Pianotech List
Subject: Re: Bass Bridge Position-upright

Attached are before and after of photos of a belly I did on an upright. Some
might say I pushed the envelope to far in shortening the speaking length of
the bass strings(they're probably right, but it's a way to learn something),
the back scale is now huge. I did this with out much experience but I was
very pleased with the bass. I think some loss of power as a trade off for a
stronger fundamental might be an apt description as you put it David. The
piano had horizontal ribs that I changed to a more traditional layout, I
also added two large cut offs.
Fenton
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>
To: "'Pianotech List'" <pianotech at ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 7:54 PM
Subject: RE: Bass Bridge Position


> JD
>
> The reason for the 6 note transition I just outlined in another post 
> so I won't rehash that.
>
> I'm not terribly enamored of the low bass on the O and I still find 
> the tenor/bass transition (as on virtually all Steinways) to be a 
> problem.  In the low bass I prefer a clear fundamental unmuddied by 
> unwanted strong upper partials.  The O in its original form does have 
> power though it's a bit too gnarly for me and lacking a clear 
> fundamental.  While I have been able to achieve a better sound which 
> scale changes such as reducing the core wire diameters, the short 
> backscale length and possibly the cantilever seem to contribute to the 
> lack of clarity and weak fundamental in the low bass.
> The
> filtering of the low fundamental that the extended cantilever 
> contributes has been discussed by those with better theoretical 
> knowledge than I have and at this point my conversion to a straight up 
> bass bridge is based a bit on faith and my own experience with such 
> changes.  Power is really secondary for me in this case.  If I can 
> have balance and continuity through the scale, I'm willing to 
> sacrifice a bit of power.
>
> Simple changes as you mention can be made to the O to make it acceptable.
> In this particular project I was looking for something a bit different.
>
> David Love
> davidlovepianos at comcast.net
> www.davidlovepianos.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On 
> Behalf Of John Delacour
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 1:21 PM
> To: Pianotech List
> Subject: RE: Bass Bridge Position
>
> At 20:01 -0700 9/3/08, David Love wrote:
>
>>My scale experiments suggest that this scale looks a bit better with
>>12 or 13 monochords in the bass instead of 10.  I'd be curious to know 
>>how many notes on your transition and what the speaking lengths at the 
>>beginning and end were.
>
> If I were doing what you're doing I would take the singles up to note
> 13 or possibly, given the reduction in speaking lengths that your 
> modification entails, to note 14.  I don't see any point in having 
> more than 4 notes in the transition.
>
> I'm curious to know why you think an improvement can be made to the 
> performance of the O by such a shortening of the bass bridge lengths.
> Certainly the bass lengths are long for a 5'10" piano and this is 
> achieved partly by rather short tail lengths on the bottom notes, but 
> I've always thought the performance of the bottom notes on the Model O 
> was rather remarkable left just as they are, including the apron, with 
> extraordinary shaking power.  You are going to replace this with a 
> straight-down bridge and presumably be using double-covered strings 
> throughout the singles.  On this piano I would do neither.  If I were 
> going to get rid of the apron I would substitute an angled bridge and 
> I might well still use single-covered singles.
>
> I consider the O, for all its faults, a pretty well-balanced piano, 
> with a bass that, with simple changes to the bass strings (as 
> discussed in another thread) has the character I find suitable for 
> this piano.
>
> JD
>
>
>
>