Can anyone explain which pianos have a Steinway bell, and which do not? I understand that they were developed to accentuate the treble of the piano. I was told they stopped using the bell some years ago, but in "Note By Note" you can see what appears to be a (black) bell attached to the rim of the L1037. Is it used only on D's nowadays? Does it really make a difference? Is it used to balance out the power of the bass of a concert grand?

Thanks in advance for your input and knowledge.

The "bell" is used in the larger sizes, from the model A and up. I cannot remember if the Ls had it. It is a part of the disign and still remains. Part of its function is to provide an additional mounting point for a plate bolt. The claim has always been that it tends to focus music energy as well.

Yamaha has adopted the use of a bell under the S6 while not on the same size C6.

Thank for the info Marty.

Yes the bell is used to augment the greater string tension on the treble end of the piano, this effectively keeps the piano from torquing or literally twisting due to the greater tension and number of string in the treble compared to the bass. As Marty said, the "bell" is used on the models A, B & D.

WHAT is this "bell" thing? i.e. What does it look like (do you mean "bell" literally?), and exactly where on the rim is it?

I've had 2 Steinway B's (including one right over there <<<) ......and I'm not sure if I have any idea.

The one right here is from 2002, the other was from 1986. In what years did Steinway do it, and ......could someone maybe tell a little more about what it is? It doesn't seem like we can really tell from the above description unless we already know about it, or at least I can't.

Thanks in advance.

Mark,

Look under the curve on the treble side.

[edit] Here's one on a Hamburg intrument:

The bell is a cast Iron arm located on the treble side of the piano under the soundboard. It is attached to the Maple Rim. A bolt is fed through the plate and soundboard and secured to the "Bell".

If you look under your "B" on the treble side you will see it.

I think it might be fair to call the "bell" a goof fixup. It increases stiffness in a part of the piano in which the plate and other structural elements were insufficiently stiff, and may also function by effectively adding mass to this same area. The large grands from other companies don't require this part, due, one supposes, to designs that are sufficiently stiff without it.

Calling it a bell is a marketing ploy, I assume. It is a stiffening element, or beam, but calling it a bell makes it sound so much more exotic.

It looks like a solid device which adds structural stability to these wonderful pianos.
Do you mean Jonathan, when you said that it "augments" the greater treble string tension, that it supports greater treble string tension?
Apart from the fabulous sound, Steinways appear to be built more solidly than other pianos.

Happy Christmas!

Robert.

THANK YOU!!!!!!

I had no idea they were talking about UNDER!!

Yes, I've got one. BTW......mine is black. I like gold better.

I've never heard of this thing in all my 200 years.

P.S. Extra bonus: I found a little spider web when I went under there to look......

BTW......I wonder if any composers have made use of it.

I mean, guys like Henry Cowell and whomever went inside the piano and did whatever, so why not......

P.S. It might also somehow be useful for PDQ Bach's "Concerto for Horn and Hardart."
I mean, we'd have to detach it and all, but.....

It is called the Glocken.
It is just another mount for anchoring the plate to the frame similar to a nose bolt.
If the nut above is adjusted correct it will help minimize energy bleeding from strings into plate.
Search the Piano Tech archives for an informative write up on it by Del Fandrich.

Perhaps these large grands from "other companies" require less stability and longevity out of their pianos compared to Steinway.

Let all your Glocken be rockin' in the new year!

Care to give examples from the same price range? Just how are Steinway's more solidly built than a Bechstein, Boesendorfer or Grotrian?



Ditto.

We've had a bunch of threads in which people complain about Steinway 'bashing.' As a number of us have argued, the supposed 'bashing' often happens after lines like these are challenged.

No problem. Yes, the NY bells are black while the Hamburg ones are gold to match the stained wood appearance they use underneath.

If you are comparing old models from those brands to similar vintage Steinway models, the statement probably is true. However, European pianos have gotten a lot more massive in recent decades.

If massive = better then we should just weigh the pianos, n'est ce pas?

Mason & Hamlin wins!

Beware the offhand line that equates Steinway's characteristics du jour with better quality. I have seen no argument here that this 'bell' offers any quality advantages at all independent of the rest of the design of which it is a part. In other words, adding such a bell to other designs need not improve those designs. The bell may be, in fact, a way to make up for some other issue (or even problem) in the design. As Roy123 notes, adding stiffening where needed does not recommend the bell to other makers whose designs did not need the extra stiffening to begin with.

Or old Chickerings!

Designs are all different; there's nothing 'wrong' with Steinway using a treble bells as there is nothing 'wrong' with other makers not using them. To suggest otherwise smacks of an agenda. I don't think there's much abjectly wrong with Steinway's designs. Otherwise I don't think that they would have the reputation for being very fine pianos that they do.

...and as long as we are on this subject, it seems to me that M&H's tension resonator could be said to also be of dubious value.

That's what I would have thought, but in some relatively recent thread Del said older Knabes(don't remember the year exactly) were actually heavier than similar sized Masons.

Yes, one could say that in that there are other ways of stiffening the structure of the piano.

The question is really whether the spider works or not (as opposed to whether or not there are other ways of stiffening the frame)becuase I think one can be quite sure that the extra thick Mason frame was sufficiently stiff without the spider.

I haven't read any articles that make a definite conclusion about the spider. I think, but am not positive, Del once said there was no evidence it was effective. I think Fine says something like...while there is no scientific evidence the spider works, techs often say that Masons retain their soundboard crown well.

If anyone ever proves the spider is of no value, I will have the exterminator remove it and have it mounted on the wall as abstrat art.

It is unclear to me the exact purpose of the bell. I've read two arguments:
- some sort of stiffening device, implying the rim is being attached TO the plate for extra support. Some are arguing this is a design flaw.
- a means of attachment of the plate TO the rim/belly.

which is it?

Additional theory: secret monitoring device.
Maybe Steinway likes to "know" about things.

But seriously folks ......I'm kind of wondering too. After 200 years, I find out that the pianos I've had for the last couple of decades have this "thing" underneath, and I have no idea what it is.....

It's from outer space.

Frankly I am very curious to hear the difference in sound with and without a bell. Anyone courageous enough to dismantle the bell and hear for the difference ?

I hope not.

Eureka! Now we have found both the secret to Steinway’s legendary sound, and the secret to the tonal differences between the Hamburg and NY S&S:

- The cast “bell” greatly enhances the piano’s tonal characteristics;

- The color of the cast bell tilts the piano’s tone to the desired timber: The Hamburg crystal clear because of the bell’s golden color; and the NY darker tone due to the black color.

I will next try to paint the bell different colors: silver, green, red…

James, it's Christmas time, try green and red.

The bell does not really stiffen anything.
The MH Tension Resonator helps stiffen the case.
The bell is just a mounting device for the nose bolt which helps dampen the plate.
If the bell were removed and an additional support beam installed between case and belly rail this would stiffen the assembly. The nose bolt could then be anchored in the beam and would work much the same way.

All this begs the question why is it shaped like a bell? I would think a straight cast iron brace would accomplish the same thing?

Think in terms of the pyramid - wide and sturdy base, less material at the tip to reduce the weight - a tried and true mechanical principle.

DING DING DING!!!!! I think we have a winner!

....among other things.

I remember in high school we had a mechanical principle. He never really did anything, just stood there and said the same things all the time.....

Principal. Remember that he's your pal.

I knew that, my friend!

That's the main reason I thought it would be funny.
What can I say.....win some, lose some......

I knew you knew; I was just kidding.

I must say that I never considered my elementary school principal my pal!

.....just like I don't consider my Steinway Bell a bell!!

Not until I know exactly what it is, at least.

(How's that for a segue.......)

Well, I don't either. After all, if you strike it with your hand it doesn't ring.

I think you just created a PROVERB!

Rephrased just a little:

"If you strike a bell, it will ring."
-- Horowitzian, 2009

BTW......with or without permission, I think I'm gonna be using it.

However, it should read "Arranged by MarkCannon".

The best person to ask about a Steinway bell is a piano detail artist. They deal with dings.

What and whom are "Steinway Detail Artists"?

Finally a sensible answer. thank you!

People who specialize in removing scratches etc. from the case.

I see said the blind man, . . .

I wouldn't ask what kind of specialist deals with dongs.

My 1940 New York B has a gold bell. I had no idea it was even there before today.

An ex-Steinway tech told me it's there to make up for some design deficiency...as mentioned in an earlier post.

The spider does not help retain soundboard crown. It can stiffen the piano's structure, which can be done by other means as well.

The presence of the nose bolt does add stiffness. The purpose of the noise bolt is not to damp the plate, because the plate, being made of cast iron, is well damped to begin with. As I alluded to before, the bell may also effectively increase the mass as seen at the string termination point by more tightly coupling the plate to the rim structure.

Roy: I've always wondered. Are you a tech?

No, but I've done lots of work on my own pianos. Also, I am a technologist by profession, and that knowledge base allows me much greater insight into the workings of pianos than I would otherwise have.

“The presence of the nose bolt does add stiffness.”

This is correct although the magnitude is very small. By the same argument, the bell probably will alter the acoustic impedance of the piano system (strings, sound board, etc) every so lightly. In general the sound is optimized when the piano’s acoustic impedance is matched to that of the air (air’s acoustic impedance is about 412 N•s•m−3 at room temperature). However it is much easier said than done, because while it is relatively easy to match the acoustic impedance at a single frequency, but very difficult to impossible to match it across the entire spectrum of the piano including all the harmonics.

Ah, I see. Are you an engineer then? Or is 'technologist' something that's slightly different?

Based on???

This is pretty much correct. The bolt extending from the plate panel to the bell stiffens that part of the panel and helps to reduce high-frequency energy losses to the plate through the treble section of the piano. Without the stiffening effect of the coupling bolt the plate vibrates rather a lot in response to the vibrating strings. As most, if not all, modern piano plates are made of gray iron—with its famously high damping factor—this coupled energy is quickly damped out giving the strings a sharper initial decay rate and reducing the overall sustain time of the treble notes.

The coupling bolt is not structural; with the piano at standard pitch I have removed several of the coupling bolts from different sizes and types of pianos for testing without ill effect. In every case, and to varying degrees, the tone through the treble area becomes more percussive and the overall sustain time decreases. (And, if you want to get technical, the measured vibration of the plate increases.)

Contrary to some comments on this topic the use of the bell and coupling bolt is not intended to cover, or mask, any design flaw unique to Steinway. If this can be considered a design flaw, then it is a flaw shared by all modern pianos. The transfer of high frequency energy from the strings to the plate is common to all pianos and its ready absorption and dissipation (as heat) into the gray iron plate is also common to all pianos.

In view of this I commonly add additional bellybraces in appropriate areas and retrofit coupling bolts in most of the pianos we rebuild. I happen to prefer additional bracing to the bell since I can use the braces to further stiffen the bellyrail; the bell does not do this. Just as vibrating energy is coupled from the strings to the plate so is energy coupled from the soundboard panel to the bellyrail. Anything that can be done to stiffen the bellyrail is also beneficial. (Assuming, of course, that the goal is to reduce the rate of decay and increase sustain. For some, apparently, this is not a desirable thing. For me it is.)

ddf

Thanks for this great post! Very informative.

Del, I am confused by a couple of your remarks. You start by saying that Gene Nelson's comments are pretty much correct, but he said that "the bell does not really stiffen anything," and you go on to say that "the bell stiffens that part of the panel and helps to reduce high-frequency energy losses to the plate." Gene goes on to say that the bell "helps dampen the plate," but you point out that "modern piano plates are made of gray iron—with its famously high damping factor," implying that the plate therefore needs no further damping.

You also say that the "coupling bolt is not structural." Given that its effect is to stiffen a portion of the piano, I would argue that it is structural. I think you mean to say that the bell is not load bearing. Stiffness and resonance characteristics are a critical part of many, if not most structures from buildings to bridges to cars to bicycles, and so on.

My understanding of what's going on is that the coupling bolts help to stiffen that part of the plate, which is not equivalent to damping. I think this has a similar effect to simply adding mass to that part of the plate. When it is stiffer, or mass is added, it resists moving more, and so absorbs less of the energy from the string, allowing more to staying in the string/bridge/soundboard/tone of the piano.

Damping is the ability of a material to absorb the vibrating energy and convert it into heat, which for a piano is basically wasting the energy. The only reason damping is advantageous is if the bleeding of energy is inevitable and you want to prevent that bled energy from creating unwanted sound. This is the case with energy that inevitably gets transferred to the plate, so while on the one hand you want to minimize that energy bleed to the plate, you want on the other hand whatever energy does escape to die once it's in the plate. So, you want to stiffen the plate (coupling bolts) but you also want the plate to dampen (gray iron).

I took a look at my piano and there are three coupling bolts in the treble area, all within about ten inches of each other. They anchor in wood braces underneath. These are in addition to three more coupling bolts in the tenor and bass areas of the piano.

It's interesting to me that only three of these are obvious when looking from above. They have protruding knobs with grip marks on them, almost decorative. The other three I only noticed by seeing them from beneath the piano; then I looked again from above and saw that they anchor in the plate with very low-profile screw-head-like tops.

I bet it would be interesting to look at the patent, to see what was claimed for it. I bet it does not do what it says it would, though.

My 1906 'B' has this molded into the rim of the bell: "Pat. Mar. 31, 1885" (no patent number), and has a "D" molded in the pointy end of the bell. The Steinway web site lists it thus:

Mar 26, 1884 C.F. Theodor Steinway "Piano-Frame"; treble bell for grand piano Mar 31, 1885 314,740

The first date is the patent application date.

Here is the actual patent document:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=EA...q=patent%20314740%20steinway&f=false


It appears that the bell is intended to prevent the upward arching of the plate due to the string tension, and thus "impart thereby to the treble strings an increased singing quality of tone".

Yes, I was told at Steinway training that the bell prevented the arching of the treble side of the piano. In other words, the treble side of the piano is under far greater tension because there are more strings. The bell augments this additional strain by providing additional support.

Steinway said that over decades and decades the piano would actually torque or twist because of this imbalanced strain.

It depends, I suppose, on your definition of the word "stiffen." The plate panel is no more stiff with the coupling bolt than it is without it. Coupling the plate to the inner rim (or to added bracing) is not making the panel any stiffer but it is preventing it from vibrating quite so much.




OK. It is not load bearing.

ddf

Bearing in mind, of course, that any arching and twisting that might be prevented by the bell does not take place in pianos that do not use the bell. Not even after decades and decades.

There is some evidence of twisting in the rims of more than a few grands (including Steinways that use the bell) but the cause (at least in my opinion, not having ever attempted to prove it one way or another) is due more to the practice of overstringing than to the lack of a bell.

ddf

Although the most extreme examples of twisted rims are on pianos which are flat strung. Shall we just say that it is due to an imbalance of forces?

True, but those pianos are usually built with a far different design than a modern piano rim and plate design. Pieced together plates rather than a single cast structure. Nothing even remotely like a modern piano.

looking at the pic it actually resembles one of those orange highway cones they use for road construction..

The nosebolt "bell" fixture should be, in my opinion, understood in terms of what the patent discloses. This is that the device was intended to be a nosebolt support. All other declarations regarding its qualities as a system stiffener, mass damper, mass aborber, etc, etc, are merely ad hoc interpretations of others who, apparently, discard the patent in favor of their own opinion.
The fact that it is a metallic nosebolt support does, I suppose, justify some speculation as to why it is used in this location in contrast to the wooden nosebolt supports in other locations and may, justify, some of this speculation but is is speculation nevertheless, absent proper context.
In point of fact, arount the turn of the previous century a number of other manufacturers used metallic supports of various shapes, in approximately the same area of the scale, apparently intending to derive some of the advantages in sound that might be attributed to this device - something questionable in my mind, but nevertheless tested by recourse to experiment. Nearly all have been abandoned subsequently and recourse had to wooden beams for nosebolt support.
Some of these manufacturers were: Kimball, Chickering, Knabe, Steinert and others. A particularly notable example being Mehlin & Sons who used an, apparently, identical fixture, which could, conceivably been acquired from the same vendor if Steinway acquired them out of house.
Regards, R Hufford, RPT

Looking under my 1903 O, there are about 12-16 inches of thick wooden beams running parallel to the pinblock. No bell. I understand that the bell was only employed in larger Steinways. I wonder why Steinway uses a different anchoring/stiffening system for pianos below the model A?

Your comment presupposes that the patent writer fully understood the device's function, used language that was fully descriptive of the device's function, and didn't use language that was intended to somewhat obfuscate or aggrandize its function. While some of what was written here about the bell was mere opinion, some was not. I've seen plenty of poorly written patents, and there's nothing that prevents readers of any patent to analyze what they've seen and read.

The nosebolt "bell" fixture should be:
_______________________________________________________________
It is really more a "noseblot-like" or "half noseblot" "bell" fixture.
The typical nose bolt has a support shoulder cast/machined into it and the assembly clamps the strut/plate when the nut is tightened.
This particular one only pulls the plate slightly downward - there is no shoulder for support on the under side. Without the bell it is just a standard bolt.

Sometimes the aggrandizing language, even deceptive language, is used in patents so that the patent will be granted at all. The criteria for granting patents is that an invention has to be new, useful and non-obvious. The goal is to get the patent and protect an idea, so any language that helps to fulfill these three criteria is fair game.

If I had a (juiced) hammer....
If I had a (Steinway)bell...
If I had a song to sing...

That's certainly true--you make a good point, though I must say that I've seen lots of patents that were granted for ideas that were pretty obvious and trivial. I think that one of the best examples of a patent whose application was written for aggrandizement is one many on the Pianoworld Forums know about--David Stanwood's original patent for his key balancing method. The idea is a good one, though somewhat trivial, and the patent is a full 44 pages long! It is fulsome to the max IMO. I don't think the patent would survive a challenge, though it is so easy to get around, I doubt anyone would bother.

My Yamaha S4, has one as well. Before this talk I have not seen it as anything special. But know I know better. Thanks.
Yamaha S4
Chopin Marche Funebre.

Dear Roy123,

Your comments are reasonable and worth discussing. My key balancing patent is an example of what happens when attorneys and patent examiners don't fully understand the simple beauty of a new and useful idea. Part of this is because my understanding of my own invention was not fully fleshed out when I applied and careful reading of the text shows how the idea develops with subsequent additions into the "equation of balance" which is a simple, useful, and significant contribution to our craft. I disagree with you that the invention is trivial because I've seen the effect it's having on the rebuilding trade. Being able to analyze, design, and construct touch weight components using time tested engineering methods, made possible by the equation of balance, has greatly reduced the guess work and haphazard results of action quality in piano rebuilds and even allows for the refinement of new pianos.

Sorry about the 44 pages!

Sincerely,

David Stanwood

Hi David,

Thanks for your informative and thoughtful response to my remarks. I hope my further remarks are in kind. It seems to me that the main advantage of your system is doing what is effectively an inertial balance. That is, by adjusting what you call the strike weight, you are adjusting the main contributor to the moment of inertia of the action. That is indeed a very worthwhile thing to do. In addition, your compilation of the strike weight numbers for many pianos is also an excellent and worthwhile addition to the body knowledge about piano actions.

However, the analytical underpinnings of adjusting strike weight are not taught in your patent. To the best of my reading, your equation of balance describes the static balance of the action, and the equation describing the static balance gives no basis for choosing where any mass should be adjusted so as to affect the moment of inertia of the action.

Additionally, the equation of balance is just simple physics known at least since the time of Archimedes. One cannot patent well known science--the basic principles of levers have been described a countless number of times. I think it is fair to say that one may be able to patent a specific process or methodology for making adjustments to a piano action. However, there is no way you can claim that the equation of balance presented in your patent is in any way proprietary. Anyone is free to use accepted math and physics to analyze a piano action or anything else, for that matter.

Depends. If the flat-strung instruments you are referring to are of the early wood-framed pianoforte variety then you’re comparing telegraphs to telephones. There is no real basis for comparison.

As I’ve never encountered a flat-strung, iron-framed instrument—the only instruments reasonably comparable—that was twisted I‘ll go with what I originally said.

It’s either that or something inherent in the way some rims—specifically those pressed as a single unit—are made. But not all single-press rims show a significant amount of twist.

I don’t think it is just the pull of the over-strung strings. More likely it’s a combination of initial plate warp (while cooling) and then pulling the warp out when the plate is installed to make it all look good.

ddf

The smaller piano, I believe, has relatively less tension and needs, accordingly, less structural strength. Or, perhaps, this was done for cost reasons - the profit margin on Steinway pianos to the factory in the 19th century were quite low, according to Fostle's book "The Steinway Saga" The standard production for about twenty years at Steinway were models which we now designate as the "D, C, B , A", with some slight modifications. When they went to smaller pianos they must have felt all of the structural aspects of the design system used in the pianos above, by the way, a very brilliant system in my opinion, were not all necessary.
I don't think it is much of an assumption to make that Theodore Steinway, in collaboration with Herz had a relatively good, scientific understanding of the aspects of the design system he was responsible for introducing to the pianos produced by his family. The first claim in the patent is that the device is intended to prevent arching of the plate in the treble. How sophisticated is this? Or, how inadequate is his explanation and understanding? This is, prima facie, a part of the function of all nosebolts which, with their shoulder adjusted to touch the plate underneath are used to immobilize the plate thereby preventing bending up or down, or in any direction.
The second claim of an acoustic effect by directing "longitudinal vibrations" which I take to mean sound, from the rim back into the area of the plate
is perhaps, a little less clear, but seems plainly enough understood in intent which was to augment the sound in this area.
Regards, Robin Hufford

The most important claim is for calculation of Key balancing specifications using the formula from the equation of balance. So it's really a process patent... I've always encouraged the free use of other aspects of the equation for analysis... and I've really made an effort in the piano tech community to encourage the use of hammer weight and strike weight specifications. I freely publish and distribute tables for rating hammer weights... There has been a lot of progress in the tech field in respect to paying attention to hammer weights... it helps....

David Stanwood

As the patent has already been granted I think one can patent this particular application of physical priniciples. Although it is true David's system does not analyze piano actions dynamically, the static analysis and case studies developed from this analysis have been a brilliant and useful innovation in the field of piano action rebuilding. It provides an hitherto absent structural framework, a common language and a communal means of analysis, particularly among technicians, which has been invaluable in the study of the effects of changing parts, lever arms, frictions and other aspects of action rebuilding. This is, by no means, a trivial improvement.
Regards, Robin Hufford