Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum FAQ - Tuner-Technicians Forum Scale Design - tension

You're right. I wrote the wire gauges wrong. The Steinway chart has all these obsolete scales, and it gets confusing.

If notes #1 and #21 are approximately the same length and are the longest strings in the piano, with agraffes about 12" from the front of the piano, it looks like there would be about 12-15" available at the tail, which would provide a lot of room at the hitchpin end for the flexibility you want.

The reason I mentioned the 64" length for what I should have said was #21 wire was that is the maximum size on a D or CFIIIs. (The CFIIIs uses the same wire gauges as a D except for 4 notes of 13-1/2 at the top.) I would think it shows that it would be rather difficult to design a concert grand with enough mass in the strings to impart a lot of energy to the soundboard without upping the tension as you approach the break.

It depends, I should think, on the size and mass of the soundboard assembly.

Del

Well, let's see. The Steinway B is about 82.5" long. I don't have one handy but I'd guess the agraffe for A-1 is about 12.5" back from the front of the keybed. That leaves us with 70" to play with. Now, we're going to want at least 12" between the back of the rim and the leading bridge pin so that leaves us with about 58" for the strings. It sounds like the actual Steinway B A-1 speaking length of about 59.5" is about right. I'd sure not want the speaking length of B-21 to be any longer than that. It would sure complicate bass string scaling. Why not just put a transition bridge in there and make about the last seven unisons bi-chord wrapped strings? Which is, in fact, what we do with this scale.

Del

Well, I've got 9-footers this week: two Ds, the CFIIIs and a Bechstein E (only 17 bass notes!). I guess I actually see them more often than any 7-footers.

In my earlier days I had a M & H A-3 which had been rebuilt rather badly before I got it. It has 2 bichords at the tenor break. I was never happy with the plain strings there and eventually got wound strings for them and it was much better. So I can see your point. It's just that it should be possible to make a decent piano about 7 feet with 20 bass notes. Maybe not desirable, though.

What I really find is the problem with seat-of-the-pants scales is that the tension goes way up a couple of octaves below C-88, and remains so high that it is hard to get a smooth transition when the scale gets foreshortened nearing the break. More wound strings is a possibility. Lowering the tension higher up, and changing gauges as the scale is foreshortened is another.

I certainly like Del's idea for a concert fortepiano and agree that such an instrument might be better able to give us new and dramatic perspectives on old familiar works, which could also be played with smaller orchestras. These would be best suited to the classical piano concertos from Haydn and Clementi to Chopin. Del could even find some young piano bravo to highlight his piano with a series of recordings of the Beethoven sonatas or of the Mozart sonatas. Schubert would be a revelation on such a piano. Such an instrument would also be better suited to the baroque literature, considering as I do that Scarlatti and even Bach were looking forward to a true pianoforte and that so nany great baroque keyboard works have been rendered so well by many great pianists.

A pianoforte more nearly approaching 7 feet would be more acceptable to more people. Perhaps Del would consider something the length of a Steinway C with lower tension design, etc.

Assuming that Del could sell everything he made, and I think he probably could, such pianfortes would of course be quite expensive but it's also a matter of scale, the cost of make and build for how many units. And it's also a golden opportunity to consider alternative, lighter and stronger substitutes to cast iron plates, perhaps some carbonite composite ceramic that is poured into a mold and baked solid. I believe that such a material could be made as acoustically dead as the best iron plates.

Then I could see two men move a concert grand piano by merely picking it up as such a change would radically reduce the weight of the piano.

Certainly there are technical centers in universities and industry that would be willing to look into the feasibility of using some of these new materials and the cost of production might turn out to make the difference.

Of course Del probably knows as much about bellies as anyone; soundboards, ribs, bridges, the uses of aprons, etc. I wonder if he'd consider making these out of some other material as well, the goal being maximum tuning stability? I'm assuming he'd use the usual pinblock material, not clear how the action would differ (does he intend to go back to Viennese actions?).

I'll never complain about how expensive good grand pianos are again, if I ever have. I've just been finding out how much people are willing to spend on SUV's and trucks. Certainly if it could be kept reasonable, no more than $40,000 apiece, one of these pianos would be well worth it.

Del, tell us how you'd think such a piano would perform the music of Brahms, Debussy, Prokofiev, etc. How well would it do Rhapsody in Blue?

Actually, Pinblocks need reform as much as anything. I have wanted to ask Del for sometime if it wouldn't be possible, and highly desireable to go to a "screw stringer" type tuning method.

Well, Del, why do we continue to use pinblocks which can be such a hassal?

Pin blocks work just fine. There's an industry to support them, including lots of tuners who know how to work with them. Screw stringers required different skils that could be awkward if you aren't familiar with them. Strings need to be sized to a pretty exact length on them, for instance. For the end user, there would be no difference in performance, so there's no point in changing.

There are a lot of romantic about how some things that used to be used in old pianos might have been better than what we use now. The Viennese action is another one of them. Awkward to work on, inaccurate, clumsy, yet people think they were somehow better. Bösendorfer didn't even provide a let-off adjustment on theirs, so how could it possibly have been better?

The fact is that the modern piano, particularly the Steinway model which is so popular to bash around here, evolved from specific desires that people wanted. Sure, there are improvements that could be made. Evening the tension is one of them. Whether that means higher tension or lower tension, I'm less sure. Personally, I think that it is dependent on the size of the piano. But if you deviate too far, you lose something.

Still, if you want to make a revolution in piano manufacture, you aren't going to make it starting with a concert grand, or even a 7' grand, no matter what Stuart & Sons may think. You are more likely to do it starting with a good upright, like Charles Walter, or even Mason & Hamlin did years ago. There just isn't enough market for anything else.

Two questions: (1) Does the high-tension/ low-tension distinction also apply to uprights? Where would some common uprights (Boston, Schulze-Pollmann, Grotrian, Kawai, M+H, etc.) fall on the tension spectrum? I recently purchased a S-P 126 as a first piano. (2) Has Steinway changed its tension design over the years, or between makes? I agree with what Del says re: large concert halls. I recently saw Andreas Schiff playing some Bach fugues on 9' Steinway with the top off at Lincoln Center - top performer, but didn't feel quite right to me. Also heard a large living-room recital on a 1930's Steinway M (5'7") (Handel piano duets with violin). Much more mellow and intimate: piano "fit" better with music, in my opinion. I don't know if it was just the ambiance of the room and how close we were to the performers, or if the older M was tuned differently. A lot of this is very subjective, of course, but others opinions would be interesting to me.

David,

You pose some interesting questions. The idea would be to produce a modern piano — that is, an instrument with the stability and reliability we have come to expect — but with a tonal performance and aesthetic that has long since been lost. Its style would be closer to the pianoforte of the 1830s to 1850s than to the modern Steinway-derived style. The action would be modern but set up for a generally lighter and quicker feel and response. In essence it would be what I think the pianoforte might have become if Steinway had not overwhelmed the industry with their manufacturing innovations.

Size.
Well, I’m already working on a 200 cm (6’ 7”) grand that incorporates a few of these ideas though it is intended to be somewhat closer to what we think of as the “modern” piano than this. I’m not locked into any particular size. The size should fit the need and the venue as well as the desire and taste of the performer. I’ve been toying with the idea of a longer piano because I’ve been thinking about the concert grand piano market. I’ve been discussing this market with a couple of people involved with various piano manufacturers and I’ve been wondering just why anyone would want to introduce yet another conventional (read Steinway D Clone). It makes no sense to me. Where is the market? The world is flooded with concert grand pianos that are not selling. Or the prestige everyone dreams about. Even if the thing were to outperform the Steinway D, By virtue of their C&A fleet Steinway owns the concert stages of the world and will for some years to come. Why bring out yet another concert piano to compete in an already saturated market? Why not develop another market niche entirely? A concert piano for the home? The small stage. Yes, make it long, give it the length to develop that solid, low frequency growl that comes only from a very long string yet make it musically pure and tonally matched to a smaller venue. Make it narrow and slender, exotic and elegant.

Now, certainly, this concept could be scaled down to a shorter scale. A pianoforte in the 225 cm (7’ 2”) could be built that would incorporate most of these attributes with only a moderate loss of low bass performance. Much less than that and something of the aesthetic balance I have in mind will be lost along with that very low bass performance. Which is not to denigrate the performance of the shorter piano at all; I have every reason to believe the low bass performance of our Model 200 will be excellent for its size. But it will not be the equal of what is possible with a even 225 cm (or longer) piano of modern design.

Cost.
As you say, the cost of the finished instrument is highly dependent on the economy of scale. I’ve no idea what the ultimate market for an instrument of this size and type might be. But let me speculate. Let’s assume production would be less than 60 instruments per year. This translates into five instruments per month. Assuming there will be good basic tooling and fixturing along with adequate heavy-duty woodworking machinery but very little in the way of automated equipment let’s further assume it will take about 400 hours of semi-skilled to skilled labor to produce each one. (That’s almost certainly an over-allowance but let’s leave it there for now.) This means a workforce of approximately 15 or 16 people. Labor (direct plus burden) in the U.S. is going to run about $12,000 to $15,000 per instrument. Depending on how much is built in-house rather than purchased, parts and materials costs could range from a low of, say $5,000 to a high of perhaps $10,000 (keeping in mind this is a very low production venture and the costs necessarily will reflect that). Now add to this the costs of overhead, return on investment, marketing and management, profit and so forth, a final price in the $40,000 to $50,000 range might be possible. That’s assuming they were all sold direct and not through dealers. If it proves impossible to maintain this sales rate and dealers become necessary then all this goes out the window and it becomes a whole new ballgame.

Technology.
It is quite probable that several new technologies could well transform the piano as we know it. However, developing these technologies and making them production ready and reliable will not be cheap. In my little scenario above there is no room for the extensive R&D work that would be required to bring either an exotic structure or an exotic soundboard assembly to market. That would introduce a whole new level of complexity and development costs. As described above the whole thing could be developed using existing technology and the end result would be quite predictable. Once new technologies like these get introduced a whole new level of complexity and uncertainty comes into the picture. Unless the project were funded with just huge amounts of money I wouldn’t even think of going that route. (I shouldn’t think even a university could take on this type of project without some outside funding. But I could be wrong — it’s been known.)

Performance.
The idea of a project such as this would be to carry forward the concepts of the early instruments and produce a modern equivalent of what these composers and performers actually played on. I see no contradiction between an instrument that would perform with equal charm both Prokofiev and Gershwin. Or, for that matter, Dave Brubeck or Oscar Peterson. John Cage is a whole other issue.

One of the advantages of a (relatively) small project like this should be versatility. Once the basic design and structure is in place there is no reason why it couldn’t fairly easily be altered to suit the needs and desires of an individual performer. That is, from a basic tone standard, a version could be made a bit brighter and more percussive or a bit warmer and sustaining. It would take only relatively minor changes to scaling and soundboard design. Actions could be easily altered to accommodate varying tastes in touch and feel.

So, why not do it?
Well, money, of course. Or the lack thereof. A project like this would cost a considerable amount to get started. Not as much as starting up another Baldwin or Steinway, but still a fair amount. I’ve never done even a basic business plan for something like this but I’m guessing it would cost closer to a million than a hundred thousand. Not all that much compared to what is spent on some of the high-tech startups we hear so much about (nearly all of which go belly up) but quite a bit more than I have at my disposal.

I think it would make a certain amount of sense for some existing piano manufacturer to pick up a project like this and develop it along side what they are already doing but I don’t see it happening any time soon. As an industry we don’t seem to be able to look beyond the basic Steinway and/or Old European archetype and conceive of what might be. And our vision of R&D seems limited primarily to manufacturing technologies. It would take a brave soul indeed to attempt developing a market niche of this type even if it would be one they totally owned for years to come.

Del

So I understand that the higher the bass section goes in the scale, the higher the tension. (?)

Also if there are wound strings in the lower tenor, there is a likelyhood the scale design is higher tension.

I hear lots of statments about certain pianos being low tension designs. But I don't hear of any particular piano that is a "high tension" design.

Sometimes I get the feeling that "low tension" design is (was once) a marketing tool to give the notion that a piano was not going to go out of tune so fast (being under less stress).

But where is a high tension design?

1] Not necessarily. Running the bass section up some can eliminate the hockey stick effect at the low end of the tenor bridge. This is unrelated to the overall scale tension.

2] Not necessarily. This is one way to cope with extending the tenor bridge down further than is actually called for by the tenor scaling. This can be done for several reasons. Once is placement of the bass/tenor plate bracing. In a four–section plate design it is generally desirable to keep this break fairly well down in the scale to more evenly distribute the string load across the plate.

3] Certain Kawai, Yamaha and M&H scales come to mind. (Please note: I am not saying there is anything necessarily ‘wrong’ with higher–tension scales. Pianos incorporating them have a certain tone quality that is appreciated by many. My own taste has been going in different directions. Yours may not.)

4] It can be a marketing ploy. But it is easy to check. It is also easy to confuse. Just where are we to measure? Treble? Tenor? Or bass? When I speak of a high–tension or a low–tension scale I am referring to the average scale tensions used through the tenor section of a piano, disregarding the hockey stick hook. I’ve categorized the general ranges in previous posts.)

As well, just like most piano design or construction ‘features,’ the proof is in the sound. If the piano has a sound quality you appreciate then what does it matter if the scale is HT or LT? One really shouldn’t be buying a piano because it has a HT scale or a LT scale. One should be buying a piano because of its tone quality and performance.

5] See No. 3.

Del

Well, yes and no. The conventional tuning pin and pinblock arrangement actually works quite well. While it's not perfect it is quite inexpensive, quite functional and lasts a really long time. I've not seen any other proposed alternative that comes close.

Yes, the screw stringer system has something to offer. But its high cost will probably preclude its ever being reintroduced. It would have to be redesigned and built with somewhat more precision. And, if we expect it to last anywhere close to as long as the conventional tuning pin/wood pinblock arrangement, it is going to have to be made of considerably stronger materials than the original. Both would drive up the cost considerably.

Del

Hi Del,

Why is it desirable to drop the tension of plain steel unisons before transitioning to wound strings?

Thanks!

Calin

It's not. It's the tension of the bi-chords that gets dropped. And it's the total unison tension that is under discussion, not the individual string tension.

And the amount that gets dropped depends largely on the amount of string length offset. In other words, how short the first wrapped string bi-chord unison is relative to the last tenor plain steel tri-chord unison.

Del

Hi Del,

What's the relationship between the length and the tension?
You use less tension for a longer bass string or more?

Calin

The greater the length offset — i.e., the larger the percentage of length differential with the wrapped strings always being shorter than the plain steel strings — between the wrapped strings and the plain strings the more the tension should be dropped. I have no mathematical formula for this, it just works out better this way in terms of tone quality and power blending.

Del

I think what Calin wanted was much simpler:

If you lengthen a string, and you want the pitch to stay the same, you have to increase the tension if the weight of the string remains the same.

Increasing the length lowers the pitch.
Increasing the tension raises the pitch.
Increasing the weight lowers the pitch. (We usually treat weight and diameter or gauge as equivalents, which is true for a material with uniform density. There's actually slight difference with wound strings, depending on how they are made. But then, there are other imperfections in the real world.)

I'm a little confused by the phrasing I added italic emphasis to above, Del. It may be the phrase "length differential" that I don't grasp as it implies a relationship and I'm not sure what's relative to what. My longest wound bass string is 77" from agraffe to bridgepin and my and my longest unwrapped tenor unisons are only 65". So when you say "wrapped strings always being shorter", I'm confused. Could you clarify, please?

By the way, I'm truly enjoying your ongoing "seminar" in piano design here in the forum. You may often wonder about the futility of educating us end users a little, but I'm sure I'm not alone in finding the portion I understand fascinating and the rest intriguing, and your generosity with time and thought here a wonderful gift to us.

I think he's talking about adjacent notes. If you switch from plain gauge wire to a heavier wound string, you need to shorten the speaking length to maintain a similar tension.

Yes, I'm talking about adjacent notes.

For example, the lowest tenor note (F-21, a plain-steel tri-chord) in a Steinway B scale is about 1470 mm long (±5 mm or so). The highest bass note (E-20, a copper-wrapped bi-chord) is about 1025 mm long (again ±5 mm or so).

This makes E-20 approximately 30% shorter than the adjacent F-21. Te make this string configuration blend the unison tension of the highest bass string is going to have to be somewhat less than it would be if it were scaled somewhat closer to, say, 10% shorter than the F-21 length. A length discrepancy of this magnitude will make both harmonic blending (i.e., controlling the harmonic content of the vibrating strings) and inharmonicity blending somewhat problematic. These scale breaks always present difficulties, this just makes them worse.

Del