Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum S&S "M" low bass improvement: You decide.

Waiting for next year's budget to be approved.



Yes, and new key bushings and regulation. But, it's going to be thrown out, along with three of their other pianos.

This is an excellent comment!

I would extend the comment to include the entire bass and tenor. I find that the partial profile of the the bass and tenor to a large degree creates the color that the a piano takes on as a whole...assuming a vibrant and live board.

Repeat though, assuming a live board. The board has to be highly responsive, as a tired board will not be able to couple those partials well or at all. My take is that #1& #2 are both non-responsive boards.

While I hear a low bass sound in #2 that I vastly prefer over the zero pitch content #1, the board/scaling/tuning on #2 in the tenor and low treble does not have the ability to create its own register appropriate partial structure. It is getting very little to no coupling help from the whatever partials the bass supplying. Perhaps #1's higher partial content is coupling a bit helping #1's tenor/low treble to be a little more musical than #2's, but they are both in need of more significant structural work.

Given the right structural conditions, the changes made to #2's low bass should be able to be enjoyed while also enjoying register appropriate low tenor/high bass and tenor sounds. Take #2 back to the shop...it needs more work, but is moving in the right direction.

My 2cents...but excellent comment on the importance of coupling.

Jim Ialeggio

Haha... you go on needling that screen door spring, you! Regarding your A/B tests, it´s like night and day. How did you fix the alive-and-not-so-nicely-kicking syndrome of an untreated M?

These two comments (quoted above) pretty much sum up my approach to the bass section. As I go about redesigning old scales (or designing new ones, for that) my goal is not to provide a killer A-1 but to provide the most musical lower third of the piano’s compass, i.e., the “bass”, that I possibly can. Unfortunately, many technicians and pianists alike tend to evaluate the bass performance of small pianos—and here the Model M must be considered to be a small piano—based on the tone quality of the lowest two or three notes alone; forming our evaluation based on the sound of just those notes—and those played loudly!—with little consideration given to the rest of the story.

Musicality through the bass section demands many things besides lots of “power” from those lowest two or three notes. Indeed, if you get the rest of it right, power will pretty much take care of itself; these are, after all, small pianos intended for small spaces. Musicality requires a smooth timbral balance across the bass-to-tenor transition along with good clarity (and a power center as close to the fundamental as possible) in all]/i] of the notes throughout the “bass” section along with a good timbral dynamics from [i]pianissimo to forte. It’s not that those lowest two or three notes are not important—they are¬—but, musically, all of these other things are much more important in defining a good-sounding bass section.

The shorter the piano, of course, the more elusive these goals become but they are still possible. It will be interesting to read about what Keith as done with his piano but these things are no longer rocket science; the basic technical requirements of both string scaling and soundboard considerations for good, musical bass performance have been discussed in any number of technical seminars and written about in several technical forums.

I agree with those who have complained that there are some problems with the recordings Keith has provided for us but even so, given what I am able to hear through my Bose noise-cancelling headsets it sounds like he has made good progress along the path toward musicality in the bass section of this piano. Yes, I’d like to hear better recordings (especially longer samples of each note) and I’d like to hear the results of better tuning and voicing (and even, perhaps, better hammers) but at least he now has something to work with.

ddf

Keith...

What happened to your promised followup on what you did here?

Jim Ialeggio

Yeah, what's up with that?

Apologies, everyone. I have been seriously slowed down with sciatic pain.
Tuned for a concert (nice M&H CC) on THU, had to lay on the floor 4 times to ease nerve pressure. Sitting in my office is OK. Driving is OK. Tuning has been doable. Can't stand for more than a very few minutes. Work in the shop languishes . . .

Spinal surgery is scheduled for next Friday. In the mean time, I should be able to get the summary up in the next day or two.

Keith, back pain such as you describe is excruciating. I speak from experience. I hope your surgery goes well.

Indeed, Mr. Akins, get well soon!

Sorry to hear about your back Keith...hope the surgery helps.

Been busy with work.....For me, the 2nd piano sounds better. I was never a fan of the Steinway M sound, however your work on the 2nd piano improves the low bass. Anxious to hear what you did.

OK, I didn't say which Monday, did I?

Hopefully, I'll get this all down right. I recently spoke with a technician colleague who had great pain prior to a hip replacement. We both agreed from direct experience that I.Q. goes down as pain goes up. The neurosurgeon has me off my pain meds in preparation for my back surgery on Friday. Anyway, here goes . . .

Piano #2 is Steinway "M" # 198131 mfg ~1919 originally ebonized but at the time I received it with a hideously-done faux walnut woodgrain finish. The soundboard was flat and really in need of replacement. However, the piano came to me from a S&S dealer with the mandate to make of it what I could without a new board. As is my practice, after rebuilding, it was delivered to the dealer in functional condition, tuned and regulated but not voiced. The orders I gave was what I typically do: play the piano at least 20-30 hours and I will then do final regulation, tuning and voicing. (They are right near a music conservatory.) I had no idea that upon delivery it would be parked nearby a brand new S&S "M"

Piano #1 is a new-from-NY-factory, never-been-sold model M with nothing notable --for better or worse-- to set it apart from what one would expect of that well-known model.

The occasion for the recording was when I stopped in to see if the 1919 piano had gotten enough playing hours to warrant me to schedule spending the time for the final fine voicing and regulating. I brought my laptop and microphone (Blue "Yeti" USB mic and Garage Band on MacBook running latest OSX Mountain Lion) with the thought that if it worked out, I would make a recording.

It seemed that the pianos were at a comparable level of preparedness. It had been 6 weeks since I had delivered the 1919 piano and the tuning was drifting although nominally at pitch and final prep was not done. There are definitely voicing issues and I might change a couple of upper bass strings, too. The tuning on the new piano was also nominally at pitch but also a bit wobbly. Prep on the new piano -- if it had ever been done-- was at best indifferent. It didn't seem fair to compare a highly prepped piano to one that wasn't -- and I don't even have authority to tune the new piano as I'm not their regular technician. Also, there were no customers in at the moment so I hurriedly set up the equipment, made a preliminary test and then took the samples -- hoping to finish before a customer came in, as it was during regular store hours. (The upper level pianos are somewhat isolated from the main sales floor that has the cheaper pianos and digitals. You may be able to hear some sound drifting in from that part of the venue.)

What was done to the piano was done as a holistic effort to get reasonable sound out of a dead board. I think it was a success from the standpoint that generally speaking the 1919 piano sounds generally comparable to the new one. It is just in the low bass where there is a clear superiority. (About 30 of you agreed with that assessment while only about 5 preferred the new piano in the bass).

Technical work included Wapin bridge modification, Cadenza hammers on WN&G shanks/flanges, moving the hitch pins back in the top two treble sections to create greater back scale. In the bass, the bridge apron was cut off and a new cap mounted on the bridge body with notches for the bichords and bridge placed directly over the attachment of apron to soundboard except at the low end the bridge is about half on a little stub of apron and half directly over the soundboard attachment point. The strings are Profundo by Isaac wound with stainless steel and hard copper and using Isaac's proprietary swaging procedure.

Some people expressed that while the 1919 piano low bass sounded better than the new piano, it wasn't great. I'd agree. Final voicing should improve that but we still aren't going to get a 7 or 9 foot piano sound out of it. It is better, though.

There were other procedures that might have been done with a different mandate. I could have made an entirely new bass bridge with direct attachment to the soundboard rather than using the existing attachment point. (So the original bridge shape was used, instead of, say, a parabolic segment.) However, that would have been easy with a new board and pulling up the existing apron attachment had the prospect of being ugly based on other existing soundboard splitting in the area. (Surprisingly there were no splits on the front side of the long bridge and few on the back side.) Also, one might have played with core wire material. And greater flexibility in the bass could have been engineered in to a new board. It also might be helpful to have a vertical hitch pin. I judged it wouldn't be worth the effort and would be a "Baldwin" appearing feature on a Steinway in a Steinway dealership. The rest of the work is not readily obvious to the non-technician.

Some one has already identified the reason why the bass sounds so deficient (in the majority opinion). There is no backscale before the helix winding for the hitch loop. The bass strings are essentially immobilized by their attachment to the hitch pins just behind the bridge. Also, the bridge apron acts as a motion-reducer and harmonic filter, weakening and obscuring whatever tone might be in the string.

The big takeaway here for me is this is an excellent illustration of what happens when one parameter (in this case string length) is maximized at the expense of other legitimate parameters (in this case, back scale and bridge to soundboard direct contact). Even though the strings are a good 2"+ shorter, they sound better. (Yes, not great, but better).

The other takeaway is the recognition that tonal preference--and even perception-- is not completely universal. I respect the respondents who preferred the new piano.

I'm glad that Del Fandrich commented on this thread. I want to give credit to my learning some of the modifications from him but don't want to imply that he authorized, approved, or was even aware of this work -- which was admittedly a more cobbled version of what he does in order to achieve a result at a price point. I am still learning and wish to give credit to those who have helped me to this point.

OK, I'm waiting for the barrage of comments . . .

So I'm curious, will you reinforce the shoulders of the hammers a bit to increase the upper harmonics? Also, what is the core on A0 now?

If you do so much at one time, you cannot really isolate any change to one particular thing. It may be that an old soundboard is not the detriment that some people claim it is!

I'm not sure how to take this comment. Do you replace soundboards? Do you have decades of experience evaluating what happens with pianos rebuilt with new boards and pianos rebuilt without?

Overall, the piano was horrible before and now it is quite adequate. I'm satisfied that the techniques I described are responsible for the effect everyone heard in the low bass. It's really quite straightforward:
1) The symptoms are well known.
2) The causes have been identified -- although many might not be aware.
3) Addressing the identified causes made the symptoms go away.

Probably will reinforce with dilute plexiglas. These hammers also respond well to ironing.

I had Ari do the re-scaling based on string lengths I sent him. I don't know the diameters. Maybe I'll take some measurements when I see the piano again.

Hi Keith,
Hope you feel better and the surgery is a success! I had commented over on the Piano Forum originally but the discussion seems to be over here now. Thanks for the information on what was done. The bass improvement is quite good, but I would have to disagree with your statement above that "I think it was a success from the standpoint that generally speaking the 1919 piano sounds generally comparable to the new one. " (except for the low bass). As I mentioned in my original post over on the PF ( before I knew the state of "Piano 2"), the tenor and upper bass still sounds like the product of an old tired board. With more work, the results for the 1919 might improve, but that also might be the case for putting some prep into the new piano. Thanks for posting all this-- it was very interesting and I hope all goes well in your recovery!

Sophia

My comment addresses the methodology of determining the causes of any change there may be, nothing more.

I do have decades of experience evaluating what happens with pianos rebuilt with new boards and pianos rebuilt without, and I have determined that it is usually not worth replacing boards.

The last time I had a direct comparison, it was between two Steinway Os made about the same time. One spent most of its life in upstate New York, while the other was near Philadelphia before coming out west. One had its board replaced about 40 years ago, the other did not. I could not hear any differences that could be attributed to the soundboard. However, the only conclusion that I could make from that comparison is that there is no inherent reason to believe that soundboards inevitably get worse as they get older.

Incidentally, let me give you a famous example of your three steps:

1) The symptoms are well known.

Oil on the shock absorbers.

2) The causes have been identified -- although many might not be aware.

Mechanic puts car on the lift and squirts oil on the shock absorbers, says they are leaking and need to be replaced. Car owner is unaware.

3) Addressing the identified causes made the symptoms go away.

Paying the mechanic to replace the shocks made the symptoms go away.

That is just an example of how methodology may be incorrect.

Above some dimension, enlarging backscales make a loss of clamping an less energy is provided to the bridge.

Which dimensions did you use , so I could understand and compare with what is considered "optimum"

mounting new strings and action parts, and making a wapin transformation is considered light repair ?

I guess I would have used new hammers and get an adequate tone with voicing. I know a lot of Steinways with old panels and they do not need so much work to be musically playeable in my opinion.

Anyway, strangely none of the 2 instruments have the usual power (hence my comment about voicing, as the base of tonal power is allowed by hammers.)

I only replace soundboards when it will make a difference. The fact that there are indeed soundboards still functioning at a high level after many years has nothing to do with replacing dead boards. It seems that your evaluation experience of a dead board vs. the new board on the same piano is zero. The fact that some boards are lively after many years doesn't compel the conclusion that all boards are lively after many (and in S&S case even a few) years. There are plenty of pianos with dead boards out there. You should have seen at least a few.

So, the pianos that were rebuilt without new boards were determined not to need them. The pianos that were rebuilt with new boards were determined the old board would not be satisfactory -- at least over the expected life of the rebuild-- so new boards were installed. Either way, you have a good piano which may be comparable in performance. But that says nothing about what was necessary to get to that performance level.

The oil on shock absorber is also very poor logic. The element present in that example which is missing in this is that there was someone deliberately "cooking" the results. What are you implying?

Also, this is not something just out of my head -- or unknown to a wide range of practitioners -- even though it may not be generally known by everyone involved in piano technology. It's straightforward science. What is the constant, what is the variable?

Hello Keith,

Your experience with Wapin and Ari Isaac's hammers and bass strings parallels ny experience with my M&H RBB. After adding Wapin, and later, his hammers, there was a remarkable and positive difference in the quality of the tone. Early on in the rebuild process, we had already switched to his bass stings, and that in and of itself made an appreciable difference in the overall tone of the piano.

In my case, it was not necessary to replace the soundboard, thankfully. I was considering it, but after my rebuilder said it was not necessary, and with the advice of several of the PW techs, it remained. The tone/timbre of the piano is simply remarkable.