Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Copying a maker's scale design

The relationships that make the truly high end piano are best known and maintained by the people themselves.

These same relationships are not so easily translated to machine.

The indication that the relationship is the right one is the sound.

Example; If regulation was such an exact science then every first year student that can memorize the numbers would be an excellent "regulator" and all would be capable of the same result and in about the same amount of time.

As it turns out, this is not the case.

The same analogy would apply to voicing. Also not the case.

Now, apply that same analogy to a piano with it's sound board, scale and balance of the piano's design. Definitely not the case.

The "nature" of the relationship that makes it unique to Steingraeber, Steinway or any of the high end pianos is in the experience of the craftsman.

I know the engineers here, and I have tremendous respect for them, will believe it can be reduced to a CNC machine. For various reasons, I disagree that it ALL can be.

Good point, Larry. In the manufacture of any complex product, there's always a mixture of man and machine. The real issue is the optimal combination--that is, what's best done by machine, and what's best done by hand. The portion of the product that can be made by machine is often related to how the design is executed, and how much capital the company can spend in tooling and factory setup. I would content that the best products result from using machines as extensively as possible, and then using skilled people as required.

Milling wooden parts and drilling accurate holes is almost surely best done by machine. Voicing hammers and doing a fine regulation will probably always be best done by skilled people.

I would include top sound board design and installation in that group requiring trained experienced craftsman as well.

I do agree there is a place in manufacturing for machines if some forms of efficiency are the priority.

Certainly, there is more to say here as I believe there are some important issues concerning the Art of piano making as we move through the 21st century. Time won't allow it right now.

The question then becomes, why not? Action geometry and regulation should be a fairly straight-forward process. If it is not it is because there are uncontrolled variables somewhere back in the process.

Modern action making is a mechanized process. If the quality control people are doing their jobs there should be virtually no variations one action stack to the next. So is modern keymaking. A run of keysets made using decent machinery should be virtually identical—at least in the parameters that matter. If action stack placement is done correctly there should be virtually no variations from one key and action set to the next. It should be possible to pre-lead the keys as part of the keymaking process and end up with the desired—engineered—up and down weights within very narrow tolerances.

Notice that there are a lot of “should be” qualifiers in there. It is the task of the high-volume piano manufacturer to ensure that its processes are capable of producing key and action components accurately enough to make this process smooth and reliable. Not all manufacturers pay adequate attention to the details and actions do end up with more variables than there should be but that is the fault of the individual manufacturer.

The real problems show up when each piano is treated as a one-off product or when the system is fundamentally flawed in some way. I’ve observed action making processes that do not have fixed index—or reference—points so that the final overall action ratio is a moving target. In these cases, yes, the process is dependent on a highly skilled technician to bring the system together and make it work acceptably. Each piano may well perform a bit differently but they will all be acceptable. It is an interesting piano building philosophy but not one that lends itself to economical production or to product consistency.



You are quite right—it cannot all be done by machine. But forty years ago we’d have said that virtually none of it could be done by machine. Indeed, we did say that and we were wrong.

Whether hammers will ever be pressed consistently enough to not require voicing by a skilled technician is an open question. Certainly some hammermakers have made progress but I doubt anyone would claim to have solved this one. And, I suspect, as long as we want to use wool fiber for their basic construction, we never will. But for most everything else there is at least the potential to reach the goal of primarily machine process and assembly. Including soundboard manufacture and installation. To get there may require more redesign and reengineering of the basic product than we are comfortable with but that is another issue. And we may find that developing the machines to do certain tasks is cost prohibitive and we’ll continue using human labor for certain tasks—stringing comes to mind—but that also is a different issue.

ddf

Going back to the original question of “copying a maker’s scale design,” your comment goes to the heart of the problem as it exists today.

I mentioned that an old Steinway Model A made the trip to China where it was “copied” by some other manufacturer. The thing is that not everything really was copied. It never is. The Steinway production process has the inner and outer rims being pressed as a unit in a single operation. There is no inherent structural or performance advantage to doing this but that is how the original was built. No modern, high-production manufacturer is going to follow this practice; the assembly process, therefore is modified so the basic skeleton—the inner rim, the bellyrail and bellybraces, the keybed, etc.—can be processed as a unit with the outer rim being attached later. Both assembly processes are capable of producing outstanding instruments but the folks doing the copying has best understand the differences between the two. .

Larry brings up the soundboard design, and for good reason. The old Model A used a purely compression-crowned soundboard system. It is unlikely that any modern pianomaker is going to want to build soundboards this way so more changes are required. Both systems are capable of producing great-sounding pianos but again, the folks doing the copying had best understand the differences. Unfortunately, to date my observations lead me to conclude that most do not.

One of the difficulties with copying some other company’s product design is that the original design has been tweaked over the years to work with one style of manufacture. It may not be readily adaptable to another process. Oh, it can be done—obviously—but something always gets lost in the translation. In my opinion piano acoustical design and piano manufacturing design should go together; it is a symbiotic relationship. I have yet to see a copied design that takes full advantage of modern manufacturing processes.

ddf

I find this information quite interesting, especially as I am a recent owner of the above mentioned piano (Brodmann 187).
I am interested to know who designed it and what was some of the criteria involved. Would your statement "innovation and creativity are crushed " apply to the design of this piano?
I suppose Brodmann isn't going to admit that they copied the design from Steinway. Is this actually true though?
What has been copied?

Do you see this as an example of "design lethargy that is stifling the industry" and another example of sameness pervading the marketplace?
Just an "easy and cheap way to get into the business" ?

I imagine you'd be hesitant to speak out publicly against another piano make/designer (if you haven't done so already) ... especially being involved in the design and manufacture of pianos yourself.
It would be very interesting to know your private thoughts on the matter though, as you obviously have strong feelings regarding this subject and a wealth of experience in piano design.

What I mean by design lethargy is simply that many companies find it acceptable to essentially copy an existing design rather than develop a new, fresh design of their own. It is lazy design and does nothing to improve the breed. It is why we still don’t have high-performance smaller pianos. It is why we still have pianos that are overly bulky—aesthetically—and overweight by about a third. It is why pianos are still needlessly wasteful of high-quality materials. It is why so many pianos share a similar look and sound. It is why pianos are not more seasonably stable. And on and on….

Assume you are a piano maker and you have a gap in your product line. You decide you need a new grand piano to fill that gap. One way to come up with a piano of that size is to simply purchase a competitor’s instrument and copy it. Oh, sure, you change a few things because you can’t build it exactly the way the original was built and some of the original materials are too expensive for you, but for the most part it’s a part-by-part copy. Others contributing to this topic have pointed out that it is common for manufacturing companies to purchase and study competitive products. And, of course, this is true in nearly every industry. But it is taken further in the piano business than in nearly any other industry and it’s so common that no longer does anyone seem at all embarrassed to be caught at it. Some—in my opinion, to their everlasting shame—even brag about it! It is viewed as a fast and cheap way to circumvent the design and engineering costs involved in developing a new instrument of your own. You simply disassemble your competitor’s piano, measure and copy. What could be easier?

But neither the industry nor your own company has made any progress in furthering the development of the instrument. To be sure, your company now has a new piano in production. You are also saddled, not just with the aged design of the original, but with any mistakes you may have introduced in the process of copying someone else’s product. Whatever strengths your new piano might possess its performance will always be compared—usually unfavorably—with that of the piano you used as a basis for your copy. At least among those who know its pedigree it will never have the opportunity to be judged on its own merit.

The other way to fill that gap is to study the competition and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. Then decide for yourself the kind of performance you want your instrument to possess. Decide for yourself how you want your instrument to look. Decide for yourself what technological advances you can make that will give your piano a performance and marketing edge. If you don’t already possess them you accumulate or acquire the knowledge and skills necessary and you design an entirely new instrument that takes advantage of the best your manufacturing capabilities has to offer. You incorporate the best new technology available into your new instrument. You aspire to performance goals that do not just match that of your competitors but surpasses them in ways that are clearly discernable to the marketplace. You put your competitors on the defensive. You give your dealers something to sell beyond a debatable pedigree and a discount off the MSRP.

This second path is certainly the more difficult and challenging one. But, in an increasingly competitive marketplace, it is the one that offers the most certain path to success.

ddf

Thank you for your thorough, informative and creative attitude/ approach towards piano design/manufacture, in your response Del.

Isn't piano design a mature technology? Are there still aspects of piano design that can be improved upon ... and if so, what exactly?

I think most consumers are simply concerned with the end product. How many really care about the process involved in getting there? Most want something that looks, feels and sounds good. Nothing wrong with that.

Being a visual artist, intensive gardener, and improvisational pianist I am always as much or more interested in process. And invariably... enthusiasm, innovation, research, experimentation and creativity ...in process, lead to a finer end result.
And it's more fun!

Computer-aided modeling and piano design is relatively new. Del and many companies have been re-designing pianos to get rid of suboptimal aspects leftover from the centuries.

I had asked him one time about the upper bass sounding kinda tubby near the break even on a 6' grand. It was caused by the "foreshortened bass bridge" and the reason for using such bridge was "obsolete design". So they still use such designs. On new pianos. Even on larger ones.

Good thing some designers and companies have the initiatve to correct such issues. This is why I look for Del's posts for the design snippets and why I am a bit curious about the future and growth of piano engineering as an academic discipline.

You mean aside from those I've already listed in my previous post? Well, improvements could also be made in tuning stability, low bass performance (especially in smaller pianos), musical transparence across the bass/tenor break and freedom from false beating in the treble. There are new shapes to be explored and new material to be incorporated. And just for you, better integration of pickup electronics.

ddf

Fascinating stuff Del.
I figured that somehow some of the Chinese manufacturers probably copied well established brands but I had nothing to back it up with.
I certainly don't fault Brodmann for copying the Steinway and I wonder if they did the same for their 212 Grand which is the only one I have played.
(I was duly impressed with it but unfortunately it was out of my budget range).
I wonder then if the same copying technique was also used by Hailun because I do know that they make mention of the fact that for their 198 the design was done by George Emerson and for their 218 grand the design was done by somebody named Stephen Paulello.
I've always wondered how much input these guys actually had. Did they design from the ground up or only let Hailun use their name, or something in between?

I'm going to have to check my sources of information; what I'd been told about the origin of the (modern) Brodmann is that prototypes were developed by Bosendorfer prior to it being purchased by Yamaha.

The Steinway connection is new to me, but it may well be fact.

From what I can find, the Bosendorfer lineage seems to be: Hoffman then Brodmann then Bosendorfer.

http://www.palacepianos.com/portal/piano-pedia/101-joseph-brodmann.html#.TgvFeWFBqbo

The Wikipedia site used to have a reference to Brodmann indicating that Bosendorfer worked for Brodmann, and eventually bought the company from Brodmann.

A friend of mine (a piano dealer, restorer, and tech) had a Brodmann in his shop a year or so that was being sold to a customer. It was a beauty to behold and play.

Glenn

Why, I believe that was my piano, Glenn
And yes, it is!

Just guessing here, but when Frank E. and Stephen P. were given the chance to design a new model, wouldn't you think they'd get as much artistic and engineering freedom as they could ask for (without incurring too high cost of manufacture, of course)? I mean, why else would Chen Hailun hire them...

I think you have to separate the history and heritage of the original company—and the original pianos—from those of today’s company and today’s pianos. What they actually have to say is this:
“Today Brodmann’s world headquarters is still located in Vienna, Austria, not far from the original factory and only five minutes away from the famous opera house and the historic old town. The city, with its musical history as well as the heritage of Joseph Brodmann and his pupil Ignaz Bösendorfer, continue to influence the way Brodmann pianos are built to this day.”

It is anybody’s guess as to just what it means to say, “the city, with its musical history as well as the heritage of Joseph Brodmann and his pupil Ignaz Bösendorfer, continue to influence the way Brodmann pianos are built to this day.” Personally I don’t see much of either the original Brodmann or Bösendorfer in the current Brodmann line. It is true, of course, that Christian Höferl and Colin Taylor both did, at one time, work for Bösendorfer. I don’t know the actual heritage of the other pianos in the Brodmann product line, but as Larry Fine says in the latest Piano Buyer, “The scale design of the 6' 2" model PE 187 is said to be similar to that of a Steinway model A….”

(I should add that—also according to Piano Buyer—in at least some of Brodman’s product lines some components are sourced from Europe and their top-end “Artist” pianos have at least some of the final work done in Germany.)

ddf

"scale design said to be similar" isn't terribly definitive is it.

Glenn

So you are the fortunate owner. My friend was quite impressed with it. A lot of bang for the buck so to speak.

It reminds me of the main line in the ad for the Belgian beer (Stella Artois) - "she is a thing of beauty."

And what do you know of its heritage or background?

Glenn

No, but the company did send an old Model A over to China and a suitable amount of time later the Model 187 went into production. You tell me....

ddf