Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum It is Hard to Overcome Physics

I have stated many times that it is hard to overcome physics when comparing pianos, and thought it worthy of a new thread.

Let's initially look at it from a few perspectives, the first being two pianos of identical construction varying only in size. For example a Yamaha C1 and C2, a Kawai RX-2 and RX-3, or a U1 and a U3. I think we would all agree that in this scenario the larger size will outperform the smaller one, and that the greater the difference in size the more obvious the tonal difference.

Another perspective is comparing pianos of differing quality and size where the "better" quality piano is smaller that the "lesser" quality piano. For example, comparing a Piano Buyer rated "High Quality Performance-Grade 5'8 inch grand with say a 6'7" middle group Consumer-Grade piano. Here the choice is not so easy, as it is hard to overcome physics.

The situation is becoming more complex with some of today's new designs. An example is Del Fandrich's designs for the Young Chang grands. Here, IMHO, the innovative scale design produces a tone that sounds, in many ways, like a larger piano. At the original introduction of the line I was fooled when I heard a 5' grand from across the room, thinking it was a 5'7". However, there is still a limit imposed by physics when you start to compare tone in instruments that are larger.

Rather than my fleshing out other scenarios I'd like to see what others think on the topic.

I don't really know anything about piano design or manufacture, materials used or the like. But I do know when I like the sound of a piano and how it makes me feel to play.

There has to be so much more to it than size. I mean you can play two different pianos of the same size and they will be completely different in sound and quality. I have played large pianos that sounded bad and small pianos that sounded good. And also some pianos which just seem to suit the environment where they are situated, and those that don't. A concert grand is great on the stage but when people crowbar them into a small living room they become pointless.

I would be interested to know what those in the manufacturing business think though.

I don't believe that the limits of physics are actually playing a big role here. My 40cm, maybe 15kg bass speaker goes down to 20Hz. So I see no reason why a 1.8meter, 400kg piano would not be able to.

Besides, "physics" is just a mathematical model, a model that you can use or not, not something that should be "overcome".

This seems like a very complex problem, but in general, I think more compromises have to made when designing a short piano. Theoretically, it's best if the bass strings are very long, but this can't be achieved within the confines of a small case. Here's an excerpt from "Piano Buyer"

"The place to begin is with the strings in the low bass. Normally among the longest in a piano, these copper-wrapped strings must be made thicker than normal to compensate for the length that the piano's small size makes impossible. The extra thickness makes them stiffer, causing the harmonics they produce to deviate from their theoretical frequencies, in a phenomenon known as inharmonicity. (This happens to some extent with all pianos; it's just much worse in small ones.) The problem here is that the fundamental frequency of a bass string is weak in comparison to its harmonics, and the ear "hears" the pitch of the note largely by listening to the harmonics and inferring from them which fundamental would have produced them. When the inharmonicity is extreme, however, each harmonic suggests a different fundamental, thus confusing the ear, which hears an indistinct pitch. So when trying out a small piano, play each note in the bass to see how low you can go before the pitch becomes unclear. (If you can no longer hum the note, the pitch is probably not clear enough to discern.)"

http://www.pianobuyer.com/fall10/92.html

The laws of physics play a role in virtually everything. I'm sure there are design tricks that can help squeeze the most "bang for your buck" out of a small piano, but in the end, the math doesn't lie. To get the best sound, you need looooong strings.

This sort of reminds me of the saying, "there's no replacement for displacement." You can take a tiny 2 liter engine and turbocharge it, but I'd rather have the raw power of a big, honkin', large displacement V8.

When I read the title of this thread, this was the first thing which popped into mind.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=218&ad=23855265&cat=&lpid=5&search=piano&ad_cid=4

(Courtesy of the Tuner/Tech Forum)

i rate tone over physics..
if you let me chose between August Forster 170 to NY Steinway D, I would take the Forster without hestitation.

So if you stretch a piece of wire from one side of the room to the other and twang it would it sound good?

It seems that the focus has shifted slightly from price point pianos to well designed pianos which are very surprising for their size. I find this particularily true in the Walter W-175 and the Cunningham 5'10" Parlour Grand. I have yet to play Mr. Fandrich's designs for Young Chang, and am eager to do so.

It is interesting to look at the S&S-M. It has long been held as the benchmark for a small piano. There are many who consider it to be far superior to its larger brother, the 'L.' Now that the 'O' has been re-introduced in the US, it is a different story.

And that illustrates the need for excellent design and scale.

I’m certainly no expert, but I’m thinking that quality does play an important role here… hence, a smaller, higher quality piano might out-perform (sound and play better) than a larger, lesser quality piano.

Also, I’m thinking that the biggest difference over-all between larger pianos and smaller pianos is in the low bass… thing is, you don’t play the low bass all the time. (Unless you play a lot of boogie-woogie ).

Rick

I think the premise in the opening post is generally true. Of course, when comparing pianos from different makers one can have personal tonal preferences that may override any theoretical size advantage, but I don't think that is what this thread is about. The fact that some think that a longer piano of "lesser quality" and cost can even compete with a shorter piano of "greater quality" and sometimes far greater price seems pretty clear indication of the importance of length.

I also think that for most makers, except possibly in the case where some of their models are radically different designs, most people feel the piano's tone improves as the length of the model in that line increases. If not, why would they purchase the larger(and more expensive) models?

If there was no cost differential and someone had enough space and an appropriate acoustical environment, how many would choose a Steinway M over a Steinway B or a Mason A over a Mason BB?

During the early years of my career the difference between what we now call “entry-level” pianos and high-end pianos was dramatic. To be sure, a lot could be done with good dealer prep work but there was still going to be a significant gap. While a 6’ 7” Brand K grand could be made to sound quite presentable, especially for its price, it was never—at least not without some modifying—going to perform on a level with a really good, high-end American or European grand. Even one four to eight inches shorter. To be sure, it might have an advantage in the very low bass but it takes more than a few low bass notes to make a great sounding piano.

This price- and size-to-performance ratio has changed dramatically over the past few years as the better high-production manufacturers have gradually gotten their act together. I know an increasing number of decent pianists who are buying longer, low-cost instruments in favor of shorter, more expensive instruments. Some of the money they saved by not going high-end is going into careful prep work that should be—but isn’t always—part of the package with a so-called “performance” piano. The potential tone quality and action performance of some of these pianos is hidden just beneath the veneer of high production.

With larger pianos the gap has been narrowing because high-production manufacturers have learned to better integrate modern manufacturing machinery into the piano making process. Design makes less difference here; the fundamental design of high-end pianos is not significantly different from that of their lower cost competition. Certainly there are differences in detail but a good technician can make up for at least some of those differences with careful action, hammer and string work.




With smaller pianos things get more complicated. It is not possible to overcome physics but it is possible to learn to work with it better than we have in the past and a willingness to take a fresh approach to working with the laws of physics can pay off handsomely with smaller pianos.

When we’re working with short scales in small physical packages we have to make clear-cut choices when we define the goals of the pianos we’re designing (or redesigning). All piano design and construction is based on compromise; anyone claiming otherwise understands neither. Until fairly recently—as piano history is measured—it seems the primary goal for the manufacturer of small pianos was to make them as loud as possible. Horsepower sells cars and sound power sells pianos. At least that seems to have been the operative theory. But, just like overpowered cars are not always pleasant to drive, overpowered pianos are not always pleasant to play.

Nothing I have done, either in new design (the Walter grands, for example) or in redesign (most recently the Young Chang/Weber product line) violates any laws of physics; I have simply used some of them in ways that are unusual to what we euphemistically call “modern” piano technology.

I started with a different musical goal; musicality as opposed to power. While this was the case with all models, achieving it has been most challenging with the smaller sizes. I learned long ago that with short pianos acoustical power must take a back seat to most everything else. That is not a big a drawback as it might seem as most of these pianos are going to be placed in relatively small rooms where power will take care if itself.

We can make short pianos sound quite nice once we relieve them of the obligation of producing huge amounts of acoustical power. We can reduce their scale tensions, thin out and lighten up their soundboard structures and give them lighter, less dense hammers. The result is something like a VW GTI compared to a Ford Mustang. The GTI is light and nimble, quick and responsive but it lacks the brute power of the Mustang. Both suit a purpose but that purpose is different. We could stuff a bigger engine into the GTI and it would certainly go faster but it would also pretty much ruin its pleasant character.

ddf

You have a rather odd sense of humor (or is it taste?)...

I do find it odd that some piano makers offer 4' 11" grands and another 5' 1" (or some other closely related dimensions). It seems to me that if you have room for a 5' wouldn't a 5'4" fit also?

I agree. But piano manufacturers tend to build what people buy and people buy both sizes. More of the 150s (4' 11") grands but significant numbers of the 157s (5' 2") grands as well. There was no thought given to dropping either.

ddf

That sounds interesting, could you be so kind and write more about your reasoning for a choice of August Forster 170 over NY S&S D?
Thanks! Karel

August Forster is simply my favorite piano. The trebe sounds divine to me and the base has extrodinary clarity and depth - even at 170.
my next favorite is C.Bechstein, Bechstein Academy and Grotrian.
Both C.Bech and Academy series shares the brilliant tone - C.Bech has better sustain in trebe, but Bechstein Academy is almost as good - that is, in a blind test, if you play only 1 piano and asks me if its C.Bech or Academy series - I could not tell. Both have great actions as well. I dont care some parts of Academy series are not made in Germany. If I decide to buy a Bechstein, I would rate Academy series over all other brands - only below C.Bech.

Grotrian has one of a kind dark, metallic tone, are some best uprights ive played. But I have only played 1 Grotrian Grand, it didnt surpurise me as their uprights did.

For NY Steinway, has the widest tonal palatee and dynamic range, but theres one thing I dont like, it is the upper registers. The trebe is too thin, rounded, with little sparkling,almost a bit dull - its not unpleasing by any means, but it doesnt do the trick for me.

I am not denying the fact that NY Steinway D is probably the greatest piano ever made - but it has nothing to do with my preferrence. For a dream piano at home I'd take a August Forster or Bechstein. Of course you can sell the Steinway D and buy 5 AF 170

i havent seen a Fazioli and Steingraeber yet.

I also want to hear why one would prefer the AF 170 to the SS D. If there is enough sonic room in the home or venue, the D is a fantastic piano. (I will skip the arguments about how all of them are different and some better than others. Obviously. However, that is true of many other brands and models.)

I wonder if manufacturers who make a series of slightly longer small grands are not trying to force dealers to carry more stock of their brand and thus create less room for other brands in the same store. Sort of like 10 different cheerios fighting for shelf space.

With the advent of numerical machines and CAD design-having more designs does not add the same costs it once did to manufacture.

The greatest small grand scale ever done was the largest of the Chickering Quarter grands. When they are in good shape the depth of tone is amazing. I see no manufacturer today utilizing the design elements The Quarter Grand established.

With the hybrid wire design protocols now available and the wrapping options for wound strings, (and of course the option to license my Pat. application pending-"Fully Tempered Duplex Scale" technology-small pianos could take another step up in musical quality.

This, a thousand times this. Why does this have to seem like such a novel, almost radical concept?