Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!


SEARCH
Piano Forums & Piano World
(ad)
Modern Piano Moving
Modern Piano Moving
(ad)
Virtual Sheet Music
Download Sheet Music Instantly
Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads
Sheet Music...
(125ad)
Piano Life Saver - Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad)
Piano Buyer Guide
Piano Buyer Spring 2017
(ad)
Lindeblad Piano
Lindeblad Piano Restorations and sales
Who's Online Now
54 registered members (Adypiano, beeboss, AndyP, CharlesXX, amad23, 7uturu, 13 invisible), 1,579 guests, and 6 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
(ad)
Estonia Pianos
Estonia Pianos
Quick Links to Useful Piano & Music Resources
Our Classified Ads
Find Piano Professionals-

*Piano Dealers - Piano Stores
*Piano Tuners
*Piano Teachers
*Piano Movers
*Piano Restorations
*Piano Manufacturers

Quick Links:
*Advertise On Piano World
*Free Piano Newsletter
*Online Piano Recitals
*Piano Recitals Index
*Piano & Music Accessories
*Live Piano Venues
*Music School Listings
* Buying a Piano
*Buying A Acoustic Piano
*Buying a Digital Piano
*Pianos for Sale
*Sell Your Piano
*How Old is My Piano?
*Directory/Site Map
*Virtual Piano
*Music Word Search
*Piano Videos
*Virtual Piano Chords & Scales
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#1125264 - 01/28/04 11:05 PM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Del Offline
5000 Post Club Member
Del  Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Olympia, Washington
Quote
Originally posted by Del:
Quote
Originally posted by Calin:
[b]
Quote
Originally posted by Del:
[b]

There have only been a few instruments built that are larger than this and from all reports their performance has not been all that outstanding. At least not enough to keep pursuing length at all costs.


Del
Hi!

... Actually, when I was referring to the scale with double lengths for each octave, I thought of it used in normal sized pianos. I guess that would mean a reloction of the bass break in a higher position though. They would need more wrapped strings than standard scales.

Calin [/b]
Actually, Iím not at all sure why so many folks consider a sweep of 2.0 to be all that desirable. It really isnít. For example, starting with a length of 52 mm for C-88 this would make C-28 1664 mm (65.5Ē) long. C-16 would be 3328 mm (131.0Ē) long. OK so far. But, using a #13 wire (0.031Ē or 0.79 mm) at C-88, which is typical, will give a tension of 162 pounds (or 73.5 kgf.). OK so far. But you must then continue using the same wire size all the way down. I havenít actually built and tested a monochord of this length and diameter, but I suspect there will be a decided time lag between hammer impact and voice. I also suspect there will be a very real power problem. A wire of that diameter and tension is going to be whipping around quite a bit. And for what?

A lot is said about Pythagorasís theories, but Pythagoras never designed or built pianos.

Del [/b]


Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Research, Design & Manufacturing Consultant
ddfandrich@gmail.com
(To contact me privately please use this e-mail address.)

Stupidity is a rare condition, ignorance is a common choice. --Anon
Piano & Music Accessories
#1125265 - 01/28/04 11:11 PM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Del Offline
5000 Post Club Member
Del  Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Olympia, Washington
Quote
Originally posted by mikewu99:
Del:


Of course if uniform tension is not a key goal this whole post is a waste of typing....
It is not. Tension at C-88 is limited by the tensile strength of the wire. From there down it becomes more a fuction of the type of sound desired.

Del


Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Research, Design & Manufacturing Consultant
ddfandrich@gmail.com
(To contact me privately please use this e-mail address.)

Stupidity is a rare condition, ignorance is a common choice. --Anon
#1125266 - 01/28/04 11:15 PM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 770
Dan M Offline
500 Post Club Member
Dan M  Offline
500 Post Club Member

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 770
California
Quote
A lot is said about Pythagorasís theories, but Pythagoras never built pianos.
Love it! That's a quote to keep.

Quote
Originally posted by Del:
Quote
Originally posted by Calin:
[b]
Quote
Originally posted by Del:
[b]

There have only been a few instruments built that are larger than this and from all reports their performance has not been all that outstanding. At least not enough to keep pursuing length at all costs.


Del
Hi!

... Actually, when I was referring to the scale with double lengths for each octave, I thought of it used in normal sized pianos. I guess that would mean a reloction of the bass break in a higher position though. They would need more wrapped strings than standard scales.

Calin [/b]
Actually, Iím not at all sure why so many folks consider a sweep of 2.0 to be all that desirable. It really isnít. For example, starting with a length of 52 mm for C-88 this would make C-28 1664 mm (65.5Ē) long. C-16 would be 3328 mm (131.0Ē) long. OK so far. But, using a #13 wire (0.031Ē or 0.79 mm) at C-88, which is typical, will give a tension of 162 pounds (or 73.5 kgf.). OK so far. But you must then continue using the same wire size all the way down. I havenít actually built and tested a monochord of this length and diameter, but I suspect there will be a decided time lag between hammer impact and voice. I also suspect there will be a very real power problem. A wire of that diameter and tension is going to be whipping around quite a bit. And for what?

A lot is said about Pythagorasís theories, but Pythagoras never designed or built pianos.

Del [/b]


The piano is my drug of choice.
Why are you reading this? Go play the piano! Why am I writing this? ARGGG!
#1125267 - 01/29/04 01:57 AM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,930
88Key_PianoPlayer Offline
1000 Post Club Member
88Key_PianoPlayer  Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,930
El Cajon, CA
What about one like this?
[Linked Image]


Associate Member - Piano Technicians Guild
1950 (#144211) Baldwin Hamilton
1956 (#167714) Baldwin Hamilton
You can right-click my avatar for an option to view a larger version.
#1125268 - 01/30/04 11:03 AM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 418
Calin Offline
Full Member
Calin  Offline
Full Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 418
Bucharest
Hi Del!

I thought about this Pythagorean scale because it would have much less inharmonicity. But indeed a problem migth be posed by the hammer/string contact time, which could be too long.

What do you mean by "real power problem"? Less power than a normal scale? If yes, why?

Calin


Calin

The Bechstein piano discussion group: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/bechstein/
The Schweighofer piano site: http://schweighofer.tripod.com
#1125269 - 01/30/04 11:08 AM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 418
Calin Offline
Full Member
Calin  Offline
Full Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 418
Bucharest
Quote
Originally posted by 88Key_PianoPlayer:
What about one like this?
[Linked Image]
Hi 88Key_PianoPlayer!

What piano is that?

Calin


Calin

The Bechstein piano discussion group: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/bechstein/
The Schweighofer piano site: http://schweighofer.tripod.com
#1125270 - 01/30/04 11:33 AM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,195
Axtremus Offline
6000 Post Club Member
Axtremus  Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,195
An 1883 Bluthner (for sale too: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3700908717&category=43376 ).

First time I see this big a plate and that funny configuration of the three bridges. Interesting stuff. Any tech/scale designer care to comment? wink

#1125271 - 01/30/04 11:56 AM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,269
ChickGrand Offline
3000 Post Club Member
ChickGrand  Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,269
Midwest U.S.
Quote
Originally posted by Axtremus:


First time I see this big a plate and that funny configuration of the three bridges. Interesting stuff. Any tech/scale designer care to comment? wink
I check "new today" every day. I saw that and thought that was a highly unusual arrangement on the tenor bridge myself.

P.S. what's that wierd little rod connecting the bass-most strut to the one next to it about a foot this side of the dampers?

#1125272 - 01/30/04 12:55 PM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Del Offline
5000 Post Club Member
Del  Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Olympia, Washington
Quote
Originally posted by chickgrand:
Quote
Originally posted by Axtremus:
[b]

First time I see this big a plate and that funny configuration of the three bridges. Interesting stuff. Any tech/scale designer care to comment? wink
I check "new today" every day. I saw that and thought that was a highly unusual arrangement on the tenor bridge myself.

P.S. what's that wierd little rod connecting the bass-most strut to the one next to it about a foot this side of the dampers? [/b]
Not me. I can't possibly imagine why anyone would consider this string layout to be advantageous.

The little rod you refer to is probably a coupler. I would guess those long plate struts developed some unwanted resonances and this was their way of damping them down. The only way to know for sure would be to take it out and see what happens. (Itís obviously non-structural.)

Del


Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Research, Design & Manufacturing Consultant
ddfandrich@gmail.com
(To contact me privately please use this e-mail address.)

Stupidity is a rare condition, ignorance is a common choice. --Anon
#1125273 - 01/30/04 01:19 PM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Del Offline
5000 Post Club Member
Del  Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Olympia, Washington
Quote
Originally posted by Calin:
Hi Del!

I thought about this Pythagorean scale because it would have much less inharmonicity. But indeed a problem migth be posed by the hammer/string contact time, which could be too long.

What do you mean by "real power problem"? Less power than a normal scale? If yes, why?

Calin
Itís not just hammer/string contact time. As the string gets longer the length of the string itself becomes an increasing problem. Aside from the practical consideration of string spacing (room must be provided side-to-side for string whip), it takes time for the wave motion to reach the end of the string where the bridge is. And once it gets there it is going to have trouble driving the bridge/soundboard assembly.

Unless, of course, the wire diameters are made absurdly large in which case other problems ó like building a plate capable of withstanding the increasing mechanical stress ó would begin to raise their ugly heads. Another obvious problem is that of building a keyset with enough stiffness to the keys to avoid the early onset of action saturation (assuming, of course, that you want to maintain anything close to a 1:8 hammer strike point ratio).

But, it is your first comment I continue to wonder about. What is it about ďmuch less inharmonicityĒ that is regarded as being so desirable? (And you are certainly not alone in this belief!) It is almost impossible for the human ear to discern subtle levels of inharmonicity. None at all is readily obvious to us, but once just a bit of inharmonicity is dialed in we have trouble picking out levels.

Keeping a uniform inharmonicity curve is important from a tuning standpoint ó jumps in inharmonicity, or an inconsistent inharmonicity curve, can make life exceedingly difficult for the tuner ó but, beyond that, it is well down on my list of important string scale design considerations. We just donít hear it.

Del


Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Research, Design & Manufacturing Consultant
ddfandrich@gmail.com
(To contact me privately please use this e-mail address.)

Stupidity is a rare condition, ignorance is a common choice. --Anon
#1125274 - 01/30/04 01:42 PM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,269
ChickGrand Offline
3000 Post Club Member
ChickGrand  Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,269
Midwest U.S.
Quote
Originally posted by Del:
I can't possibly imagine why anyone would consider this string layout to be advantageous.

The little rod you refer to is probably a coupler. I would guess those long plate struts developed some unwanted resonances and this was their way of damping them down. The only way to know for sure would be to take it out and see what happens. (Itís obviously non-structural.)

Del
Isn't any significant deviation from anything nearest a straight diagonal line (never actually done) a compromise to "fix" a scale design? When I saw that tenor bridge positioned perpendicular to the bass bridge, practically forming a tee, I wondered how they could possibly get so far afield from ideal.

Your explanation for the rod is just what I expected. Another clue to a bad job on that one overall?

#1125275 - 01/30/04 05:14 PM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Del Offline
5000 Post Club Member
Del  Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Olympia, Washington
Quote
Originally posted by chickgrand:
Quote
Originally posted by Del:
[b]I can't possibly imagine why anyone would consider this string layout to be advantageous.

The little rod you refer to is probably a coupler. I would guess those long plate struts developed some unwanted resonances and this was their way of damping them down. The only way to know for sure would be to take it out and see what happens. (Itís obviously non-structural.)

Del
Isn't any significant deviation from anything nearest a straight diagonal line (never actually done) a compromise to "fix" a scale design? When I saw that tenor bridge positioned perpendicular to the bass bridge, practically forming a tee, I wondered how they could possibly get so far afield from ideal.

Your explanation for the rod is just what I expected. Another clue to a bad job on that one overall? [/b]
I'm not sure I would call this a "bad" job in the context of when this piano was built. In 1883 a lot of things were being tried out by most pianomakers, some of which worked and some of which didn't. Still, they were trying hard to make sense of it all and to make acoustical progress. Quite unlike the industry of today when most everybody seems frightened to death to do anything different. In part, I suppose, because when they do they so often reap critism from so many.

While I don't pretend to understand what the designer of this piano was up to -- well, other than trying out an idea about smoothing out the bass/tenor break -- I can't be any more critical of it than I can of the manual choke used in my first car (a 1950 Chevy fastback). It was state of the art back in 1883.

Del


Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Research, Design & Manufacturing Consultant
ddfandrich@gmail.com
(To contact me privately please use this e-mail address.)

Stupidity is a rare condition, ignorance is a common choice. --Anon
#1125276 - 01/30/04 07:35 PM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 25,067
BDB Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
BDB  Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 25,067
Oakland
I can imagine that the designer wanted to minimize the acoustic coupling between the tenor strings and the bass strings, so the cross-strung strings don't cross many of the tenor strings.

Note that there are three levels of strings at the cross-over, the tenor strings, the aliquot strings and the bass strings, both wound and unwound. I've actually seen a triple-cross-strung upright, with a set of tenor strings crossed over the rest, and then the bass strings crossed over both of them.

You can't see the grain of the soundboard, but one of the ideas behind cross-stringing was to move the bridges closer to the center of the soundboard, and to put them on the longest straight-grain lengths of it.

A while ago I mentioned that the Steinway model, with cross-stringing, cupola plates, continuous rim, Erard-Herz action, and sostenuto pedal has become pretty much the standard for modern grands. This piano is an example of trying to go beyond that model, I think, but it is also an example of a design that didn't become a model for others. (I bet it has a Bluthner action!) Although Bluthner still uses the aliquot strings, none of the innovations in this piano have been adopted by other manufacturers, and as such, really represents a dead end in piano design. That doesn't mean itis a bad piano.


Semipro Tech
#1125277 - 01/30/04 07:39 PM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 418
Calin Offline
Full Member
Calin  Offline
Full Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 418
Bucharest
Quote
Originally posted by Del:
Quote
Originally posted by Calin:
[b]
Calin
It's not just hammer/string contact time. As the string gets longer the length of the string itself becomes an increasing problem. Aside from the practical consideration of string spacing (room must be provided side-to-side for string whip), it takes time for the wave motion to reach the end of the string where the bridge is. And once it gets there it is going to have trouble driving the bridge/soundboard assembly.

Unless, of course, the wire diameters are made absurdly large in which case other problems — like building a plate capable of withstanding the increasing mechanical stress — would begin to raise their ugly heads. Another obvious problem is that of building a keyset with enough stiffness to the keys to avoid the early onset of action saturation (assuming, of course, that you want to maintain anything close to a 1:8 hammer strike point ratio).

But, it is your first comment I continue to wonder about. What is it about “much less inharmonicity” that is regarded as being so desirable? (And you are certainly not alone in this belief!) It is almost impossible for the human ear to discern subtle levels of inharmonicity. None at all is readily obvious to us, but once just a bit of inharmonicity is dialed in we have trouble picking out levels.

Keeping a uniform inharmonicity curve is important from a tuning standpoint — jumps in inharmonicity, or an inconsistent inharmonicity curve, can make life exceedingly difficult for the tuner — but, beyond that, it is well down on my list of important string scale design considerations. We just don't hear it.

Del [/b]
Hi Del!

About inharmonicity: I thought it might be desirable to have less of it, since this would lead to less stretch in the tuning.
But I am not so sure if this is desirable after all. Some say (e.g. Klaus Fenner) that there should be a certain level of inharmonicity because of the particularities of the human ear, which percieves it as pleasant. I have no idea what the "correct" level might be. Do you know more abut this thing?

Anyway, my Pythagorean scaling idea was related to building a normal-sized piano, not some huge monster. So the strings won't get much longer overall than in the average grand - but they would, of course, be somewhat longer for each unison, meaning the bass break must be in a higher place and more bass strings must be used than in a comparably sized "normal" piano.
If the outcome would be worth the trouble, I don't know...

It's still not clear to me why a such a scale would have less power - I believe the smaller weight of the thinner strings could be compensated by their greater length - so the mass should be about the same, or...?

What are your most important considerations for scale design?

Calin


Calin

The Bechstein piano discussion group: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/bechstein/
The Schweighofer piano site: http://schweighofer.tripod.com
#1125278 - 01/31/04 12:51 AM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Del Offline
5000 Post Club Member
Del  Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Olympia, Washington
Quote
Originally posted by Calin:
Hi Del!

[1] About inharmonicity: I thought it might be desirable to have less of it, since this would lead to less stretch in the tuning.
But I am not so sure if this is desirable after all....

[2] Anyway, my Pythagorean scaling idea was related to building a normal-sized piano, not some huge monster. So the strings won't get much longer overall than in the average grand - but they would, of course, be somewhat longer for each unison, meaning the bass break must be in a higher place and more bass strings must be used than in a comparably sized "normal" piano.
If the outcome would be worth the trouble, I don't know...

[3] It's still not clear to me why a such a scale would have less power - I believe the smaller weight of the thinner strings could be compensated by their greater length - so the mass should be about the same, or...?

[4] What are your most important considerations for scale design?

Calin [/QB]
[1] Some inharmonicity is inevitable whether we want it or not or whether we think it is desirable or not. It is a natural consequence of a taut string possessing stiffness and mass.

Yes, a scale with higher inharmonicity will require a slightly wider tuning spread. But so what? Unless the scaling is really bonkers the tuning spread difference between a piano of a given length with a practical long scale vs. a piano of the same length with a practical short scale is going to be so slight itís doubtful it will be noticeable by even the most discerning pianist. There would be differences in the tone quality that would mask anything happening with the tuning spread. (Of course, this also assumes the tuning is properly done.)

[2] Well, unless the piano is exceedingly long the transition to wrapped strings will have to take place rather far up the scale. Again, I still donít see the advantage of the so-called Pythagoras scaling notion. As I said, Pythagoras didnít design or build pianos. If he had he would have encountered a number of practical issues that take precedence over any arbitrary doubling of string length ever octave.

[3] What can I say. Try it and see. Beyond a certain point a long, thin string is no longer able to put enough energy into the bridge to efficiently drive it. The solution is to add mass to the string, but this drives the tension up rather quickly unless you shorten the speaking length. And now youíre back to conventional scaling.

Not that there isnít some flexibility in this mass/length relationship. I think in an earlier post I went into this some.

[4] The two most important criteria are the overall length of the piano in question and the tone quality desired by the client. Once these two issues are settled it becomes a question of choosing an appropriate length/tension relationship and then physically fitting it all into the size available in a suitable manner. Sadly, Pythagoras is of no help whatsoever in this endeavour.

Del


Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Research, Design & Manufacturing Consultant
ddfandrich@gmail.com
(To contact me privately please use this e-mail address.)

Stupidity is a rare condition, ignorance is a common choice. --Anon
#1125279 - 01/31/04 05:02 AM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 418
Calin Offline
Full Member
Calin  Offline
Full Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 418
Bucharest
Quote
Originally posted by Del:
Quote
Originally posted by Calin:
Calin
[1] Some inharmonicity is inevitable whether we want it or not or whether we think it is desirable or not. It is a natural consequence of a taut string possessing stiffness and mass.

Yes, a scale with higher inharmonicity will require a slightly wider tuning spread. But so what? Unless the scaling is really bonkers the tuning spread difference between a piano of a given length with a practical long scale vs. a piano of the same length with a practical short scale is going to be so slight itís doubtful it will be noticeable by even the most discerning pianist. There would be differences in the tone quality that would mask anything happening with the tuning spread. (Of course, this also assumes the tuning is properly done.)

[2] Well, unless the piano is exceedingly long the transition to wrapped strings will have to take place rather far up the scale. Again, I still donít see the advantage of the so-called Pythagoras scaling notion. As I said, Pythagoras didnít design or build pianos. If he had he would have encountered a number of practical issues that take precedence over any arbitrary doubling of string length ever octave.

[3] What can I say. Try it and see. Beyond a certain point a long, thin string is no longer able to put enough energy into the bridge to efficiently drive it. The solution is to add mass to the string, but this drives the tension up rather quickly unless you shorten the speaking length. And now youíre back to conventional scaling.

Not that there isnít some flexibility in this mass/length relationship. I think in an earlier post I went into this some.

[4] The two most important criteria are the overall length of the piano in question and the tone quality desired by the client. Once these two issues are settled it becomes a question of choosing an appropriate length/tension relationship and then physically fitting it all into the size available in a suitable manner. Sadly, Pythagoras is of no help whatsoever in this endeavour.

Del [/QB]
Hello Del!

Pythagoras has nothing to do with pianos and scaling. It's just a way I tried to describe a scale that doubles in length for each octave with less words :-)

Could you please tell us more about the relationship between tone quality and scaling / soundboard construction etc.?

Also about length and tension relationship?

Calin


Calin

The Bechstein piano discussion group: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/bechstein/
The Schweighofer piano site: http://schweighofer.tripod.com
#1125280 - 01/31/04 10:35 AM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 877
Toddler2 Offline
500 Post Club Member
Toddler2  Offline
500 Post Club Member

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 877
Hillsborough, NC
How's that book coming along Del?? smile

Todd wink


M&H AA (2006)
#1125281 - 01/31/04 12:49 PM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Del Offline
5000 Post Club Member
Del  Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Olympia, Washington
Quote
Originally posted by Calin:
[/QB]
Hello Del!

Pythagoras has nothing to do with pianos and scaling. It's just a way I tried to describe a scale that doubles in length for each octave with less words :-)

Could you please tell us more about the relationship between tone quality and scaling / soundboard construction etc.?

Also about length and tension relationship?

Calin [/QB][/QUOTE]


Not in a few words. We're rapidly getting beyond anything I can afford the time to answer. I've already written about this a bit on this list and on pianotech. I've also written about it in the Piano Technicians Journal. It is also an integral part of most of my all-day seminars.

Basically, there are four extremes:
ó Long scales with high tension.
ó Long scales with low tension.
ó Short scales with high tension.
ó Short scales with low tension.

In broad terms, long scales with low tension will be richer in fundamental energy (warmer and more melodic) and short scales with high tension will be richer in upper harmonic energy (sharper and more linear). Remember, these are extremes and there are many, many mitigating elements that will alter the final outcome. The idea is pick that combination that will yield the desired results within the size instrument available.


Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Research, Design & Manufacturing Consultant
ddfandrich@gmail.com
(To contact me privately please use this e-mail address.)

Stupidity is a rare condition, ignorance is a common choice. --Anon
#1125282 - 01/31/04 12:51 PM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Del Offline
5000 Post Club Member
Del  Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Olympia, Washington
Quote
Originally posted by Toddler2:
How's that book coming along Del?? smile

Todd wink
Well, as my wife has been pointing out, the more time I spend here the less time I have to work on it.

I've got to get back to work now.

Del


Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Research, Design & Manufacturing Consultant
ddfandrich@gmail.com
(To contact me privately please use this e-mail address.)

Stupidity is a rare condition, ignorance is a common choice. --Anon
#1125283 - 01/31/04 04:19 PM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,044
Manitou Offline
1000 Post Club Member
Manitou  Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,044
Colorado
Thought:

Is not the aim of scale desig also to create strings of equal length on each note, to keep inharmonicity levels equal in unisons ?

If you mathematically make each string (even within a single note) longer, then you cannot possibly achieve the desired identical levels of inharmonicity, in each unison ?

Manitou - Pianist - Technician


Manitou - Pianist - Technician
#1125284 - 01/31/04 04:36 PM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 877
Toddler2 Offline
500 Post Club Member
Toddler2  Offline
500 Post Club Member

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 877
Hillsborough, NC
I thought I read that inharmonicity is related to string gauge/stiffness too, so keeping the lenths the same wouldn't keep the level even.
No?
Todd


M&H AA (2006)
#1125285 - 02/02/04 01:10 PM Re: Logarithmic scale?  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Del Offline
5000 Post Club Member
Del  Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,521
Olympia, Washington
Quote
Originally posted by Manitou:
Thought:

Is not the aim of scale desig also to create strings of equal length on each note, to keep inharmonicity levels equal in unisons ?

If you mathematically make each string (even within a single note) longer, then you cannot possibly achieve the desired identical levels of inharmonicity, in each unison ?

Manitou - Pianist - Technician
Sorry, I think there is a misunderstanding here. The individual strings within the unison are of equal length. At least in most pianos they are. There are a few exceptions.

When a scale is laid out it is to either the center string of the unison or to the centerline of a bi-chord unison. The other strings are filled in later.

Del


Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Research, Design & Manufacturing Consultant
ddfandrich@gmail.com
(To contact me privately please use this e-mail address.)

Stupidity is a rare condition, ignorance is a common choice. --Anon
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Piano Acc. & Gift Items in
Piano World's Online Store
In PianoSupplies.com ,(a division of Piano World) our online store for piano and music gifts and accessories, party goods, tuning equipment, piano moving equipment, benches, lamps Caster Cups and more.


Free Shipping on Jansen Artist Piano Benches
(ad)
Pearl River
Pearl River Pianos
ad
Pierce Piano Atlas


(ad)
Pianoteq
Grotrian Concert
Royal
for Pianoteq out now
What's Hot!!
Why Do You Play The Piano?
-------------------
Posting Pictures on the Forums
-------------------
Forums RULES & HELP
-------------------
ADVERTISE on Piano World
-------------------
Piano Classified Ads
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Are there any Steingraeber & Sohne pianos in Australia?
by PerfectPianoSearch. 06/28/17 03:22 AM
Kawai or Yamaha for classical music?
by James Guo. 06/27/17 10:47 PM
I hope I'm still playing...
by Retsacnal. 06/27/17 10:02 PM
Playing Some (Not All) Movements of a Piece?
by ClsscLib. 06/27/17 08:13 PM
Should I give up piano lessons
by dat77. 06/27/17 08:10 PM
(ad)
Sheet Music Plus
Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale
(ad)
Accu-Tuner
Sanderson Accu-Tuner
Forum Statistics
Forums44
Topics180,495
Posts2,639,694
Members88,206
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
Check It Out!
There's a lot more to Piano World than just the forums.
Check It Out!
Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers


 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
| Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter |


copyright 1997 - 2017 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0