Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Trend towards a shorter string speaking length for top grands

I would be especially interested in hearing the group's input on the shorter string speaking length for upper tier grands relative to lower and mid tier brands(within the 7' size class) since everyone refers to the string length as the primary reason for the large grands yet Steinway, MH, Schimmel, Bluthner must have thier reasons for the shorter strings:

Source is Ancott 2002 (#1 string speaking length):

1/ Steinway B (6'10.5") - 59.25"
2/ Mason & Hamlin BB (7') - 59.375"
3/ Schimmel cc213 (7') - 59.25"
4/ C. Bechstein B208 (6'10") - 58.2"

For the Schimmel, I found it interesting that the 7' is a completely clean sheet new design compared to their old cc208 (6'10") using the latest version of Schimmel's CAPE software YET they only increased the speaking length from 59.0 to 59.25 when going from the 208 to the new design 213 (there is a major difference in the bass output and bass quality between the two) - given the choice on a "clean sheet" design Schimmel's engineers chose to stay with the old (on the short side) speaking length(s).

I have my own theory for the above, but first here are the speaking lengths for a few mid and low tier(long speaking length) grands for reference:

1/ Kohler & Cambell (Korea)KFM-800S 7' - 64.5"
2/ Pearl River (China) 213 7' - 60"
3/ Yamaha (Japan) C6 6'10" - 61.5"
4/ Knabe (Korea) WKG-70 7' - 64.5"

Whoa, look at the Knabe and Kohler & Cambell, both over 5" more speaking length than the all of the listed upper tiers.

My theory is that since bridge placement is a major factor in determining the actual speaking length, and the soundboard gets stiffer as you approach its inner rim mountings, that any gains in increasing the speaking length by placing the bridge closer to the far edge of the soundboard (in same length grands) is offset by the major rate of stiffness increase for every inch you get closer to the rim, in other words a long speaking length string (5% longer) does no good if its trying to vibrate a stiff outer portion of the soundboard that is 15% stiffer.

Looking forward to comments...

That's an interesting theory there, Bond. I have no idea if you're right about the bridge placement, so maybe someone else could comment more intelligently about that than I. But, I would like to add that there seems to be an attempt by some manufacturers to play the "specs game" for the consumer who believes that objective measurements will add up to a superior piano.

In my opinion, comparing piano specs, other than overall length of the piano (height for uprights), is effectively pointless. Will a piano with a 1.7" longer speaking length on string #1 sound better? Will a piano with 30 more square centimeters of soundboard produce superior tone? My belief is that when one is comparing pianos of the same length or height, these specs are just "noise" that bring nothing to the comparison. The only comparisons should be in quality of materials and workmanship, tone and touch. As that list becomes progessively subjective in interpretation, thus does, ultimately, the selection of a piano.

Matt hits the nail squarely on the head. You cannot pull one spec out of things and make worthwhile comparisons. String length is just one of many considerations in the final mix.

Think of this - I am comparing foot long hot dogs. Now, none of them are actually an exact foot long, but I am down to the two longest hot dogs. One is these two is 1/4" longer than the other. Based on this information, which hotdog will taste better?

Hi Bond,

You are right.

But if "everyone" includes me, then "everyone" is not saying the primary reason for a big piano is string length.

I say the original primary logic behind the large grand is volume- e.g. a big piano to fill a big room with sound. Smaller pianos for smaller rooms. However, having more length allows for bass scaling that creates less inharmonicity, which is quite nice. Still in all, I can't see the need for a 7-9' piano in the home. Most people would have to back off on the dynamics on a piano that size in a small room or risk their hearing. Personally I have never been turned on by any "home" piano more than by the old 6'2" Mason & Hamlin AA- followed closely by the 5'8" A.

You are right on in what you say about a bridge being closer to the middle of the board rather than toward the edge being the better choice in terms of tone.

I will also say that contrary to what the majority here seem to think (as indicated in a recent thread), more square inches of soundboard does not neccessarily equal "more sound" and certainly not "better sound". In fact, too many square inches can work against you, causing dead spots and lesser acoustical efficiency. Some manufacturers know this and purposely hack off part of the soundboard in the name of better acoustical performance.

So longer ain't neccessarily better, and neither is bigger.

Regards,

Rick Clark

Another example where 'more' ain't always 'better'!

This, to the best of my info - and I'm no expert here - has much more to do with scaling and engineering the overall piano aiming at BALANCE of tone across the keyboard rather than blatant, 'wild' power.... at ANY cost?

Just making things 'longer' [!] is no guarantor for ....well...I better stop here....

...oh..."false beats"...isn't that what's quickly invited when you don't watch VERY carefully what you're doing up there??

[my heart is beating to get out'a here.. : :rolleyes: ]

norbert

I think my 1960s Baldwin R had a bass bridge that was cantilevered.
That both increased the string length and contacted the soundboard further from the rim.

Are these common?
Are there disadvantages to a cantilevered bass bridge?

In certain pianos with this bridge location(and I have in mind the treble bridge here), there will be at least one note that has a thumping sound because of the rigidity that goes with having it in that particular location. Voicing does little to alleviate that in my experience.

Mark Mandell
www.pianosource.com

Kenny,

Yes, cantilevered bass bridges are pretty much the rule- though there is obviously a limitation on the length of the cantilever, lest one create a 'diving board'. I never thought about disadvantages--I suppose that subject could be a can of worms in itself. One thing I can think of offhand is that the maker better be sure he's got darn good glue joints in the assembly.

Regards,

Rick Clark

The "cantilevered" bass bridges are actually called bass bridge aprons and are generally found only on smaller grands. At the Schimmel booth, I raised the question to the engineers when I saw the specifications of my 7' alongside the 6' 3" and 5' 7" grands - under the "Bridges" section of the specs, there were two catagories "Direct energy transfer from bass bridge to soundboard" (7' model) AND "Energy transfer from bass bridge to soundbaord via bridge apron" (6' 3" and 5' 7" models). The Schimmel engineer advised me that apron is a design compromise necessary on all smaller grands (not just Schimmel). Looking at sub 7 footers, I began to notice the "apron" (diving board), with all 7'+ having the direct connection.

While we are on bass bridges why do some have holes drilled in them?
Mass reduction?

I'm Not a Piano Expert, so that is why I'm asking the following questions...

Would the bass bridge compromise be enough of any issue (if budget constraints were eliminated) to move up to 7'+ piano?

There was mention that bass bridge compromises are made on sub 7' pianos, is this true universally regardless of make? Are there any makes of piano that do not compromise its' bass bridge?

Is it possible to construct a uncompromising bass bridge on sub 7' pianos? At what cost?

I am not convinced that a bass bridge with an apron is necessarily a compromise that is significant enough to worry about. If the pieces of the assembly are well made and the glue joints are excellent, I don't believe the energy transfer into the soundboard would be any less "direct" than a simple bridge. Good tight well fitting glue joints make the whole assembly act like one solid piece.

Even if there were some small acoustical loss, it is just as likely to work to the benefit of the sound as it is to the detriment of the sound- since there is a tendancy for the bass section to sometimes become disproportionately loud to the rest of the piano. But since I'm not convinced this energy loss even exists... maybe that's a moot point.

Regards,

Rick Clark

If there were no disadvantages to the bridge apron, one would think that the larger pianos would use it to increase the string speaking length(s) as it does in the smaller grands.

By the way, perhaps everyone could take a look at their grands and advise the size and whether it has a bass bridge apron - I have posted a few photos as a guide, the larger soundboard photo has the bass bridge apron with the oval holes in it

Hi bond,

If you have it there, could you please post the speaking length of the #1 string for the Baldwin SF10 (7')? Thanks!

Hi Larry,

I always enjoy your metaphors on this board.

Kenny:

I presume you're referring to the holes through the bottom of the bridge?

You are right, these are an effort to reduce mass. This of course gives a cleaner transfer of energy from the string to the soundboard.

KlavierBauer

Hi RachFan,

The Baldwin SF10E (only listing for the SF10 - no plain SF10) is listed at 63" and 2170 sq inches soundboard area - how does your bridge compare with the photos - apron or none?

Hi bond,

The 63 inch speaking length for the Baldwin SF10E seems to be one of the longer ones listed in this thread. I myself have a Model L (6'3") and, as would be expected, it does have the bridge apron for the overstrung bass strings. I would think that the SF10E (7') is direct connection, but would have to inspect one "under the hood" to be positive. Maybe one of the technicians here has seen or worked on one recently and recalls.

Knabe 5'9" grand has bass bridge with apron, but there are no holes drilled in the apron as shown in the photo previously.
David

Checked a 1998 Yamaha C2 (5' 8"), has bass apron w/o holes