Buried in the Missing Fundamental thread are some posts about flatstrung pianos. Jim Ialeggio mentioned Arno Patin has designed one and Schwammerl said Stephen Paulello will unveil 2.17m sized grand next year.

More to the point Del says a smaller grand would be enchanting. This could be exactly what I have promised myself when I have learnt to play my upright well enough to move on. I can assure you this gives anyone more than sufficient time to put Del's design into production.

For a total investment around $200,000 an enterprising manufacturer could have a unique product that would attract the attention of musicians round the world. Ideal for accompanists? It sounds like a great marketing proposition.

So my questions are how would it look and sound, who wants one and who is going to make it?

What are the supposed advantages of a flat strung grand?

I don't think anyone can market a product with a mere $200,000 investment.

A one-off marvel? Perhaps.

But the costs of design, development, production, distribution, marketing will chew up $200 K in the blink of an eye.

i would love to hear a sample.

Yes, no doubt, but the larger investment is in its way the easy bit.

The $k200 is for your one-off marvel proof-of-concept marketing prototype. How much could that be done for?

The gist of the discussion was that its hard to know how much a flat strung piano would or wouldn't improve clarity or the perception of fundamental, and register differentiation, simply because there a no or very few examples out there.

Earlier full length pianos, before full cast iron plates, were all flat strung. Piano fortes, though not possessing power and sustain of a modern piano, did have an alluring clarity and register differentiation that the modern pianos do not possess.

Uniformity of registers is something that modern manufacturers try to achieve and sell...Whether this model is the only model we need really cannot be proved without modern piano example which employs the flat sting set up.

Man I need a patron...has anybody seen the Medicis...where are they when you need 'em. One option might be to mess with an old flat strung Chickering, Lord knows there are a number of them moldering about in New England Barns.

Jim Ialeggio

Thanks. Is there some relatively simple explanation of why straight strung pianos could offer those two possible advantages or is it based on observation of existing models from the 19th century?

I know nothing of the technical aspects of this style of piano building. But I can tell you this much.

When I was a student in Paris during 1970, my teacher had a large Erard from the '90s, straight-strung with under-dampers, about the size of a C. I played that piano not less than twice a week for the better part of a year and, to this day, have never forgotten it's deep, dark and soft beauty. The action was superb as well, the key-dip a bit shallower which allowed one to play the octave glissando in the Waldstein without danger to life and limb. Just how it would sound in a small, carpeted room, is another matter. It did have sustain, but not to the extent of our modern instruments. One pedaled differently. The power was less than a modern Steinway, but then, what piano isn't ?

Rippen and Lindner grands were flat-strung. I have heard a Lindner. I do not recall hearing anything special related to its being flat-strung, although I might have had I known now what to listen to.

It is always amusing to hear someone say how somebody else should spend vast sums of money to satisfy their curiosity. That sort of financial thinking is what is ruining the economy for everyone.

Well, I can tell you what mine would look like. The rims I’ve pressed for my semi-overstrung design will work equally well with a flat-strung design. The only real difference between a rim designed for a conventional, so-called “modern” over-strung piano and a flat-strung piano is the shape of the tail. Generally the rims of the early flat-strung pianos—having evolved more directly from the harpsichord—were quite slender. As this is an aesthetic I like the rims I have pressed are also quite slender.

Predicting the cost of bringing any new design from concept through to production is something like trying to hit a moving target with a bent arrow. You can’t put a price tag on the project until you have gathered quite a lot of information. The cost of designing and building a one-off instrument for a specific client will be quite different than the cost of designing and building a factory capable of cranking out a hundred pianos a year. The cost of starting from scratch will be a lot different—that is, a lot more—than it would be for an existing manufacturer to add something to its product line using a lot of the machinery and tooling already in place.

I could certainly build a very nice 200 cm (6’ 7”) or 250 cm (8’ 2 ½”) flat-strung piano (these are the sizes of my rims) for $200K. I could not build a factory to produce that piano in any kind of meaningful numbers for anywhere close to that.

ddf

The most significant—and theoretical—advantages are balance and smoothness. Because the low end of the tenor bridge and the upper end of the bass bridge are immediately adjacent to each other it is theoretically possible to blend the two much more smoothly. As well, since the frame does not have to cope with the twisting forces of the over-strung bass strings it can be lighter and still provide good stability.

Certain tonal characteristics that are frequently attributed to the flat-strung design—specifically, clarity and warmth—are really functions of scaling, soundboard design and hammer selection. These are universal characteristics and can be achieved in over-strung pianos as well.

Those of us who like the flat-strung concept usually also like how they look. There is a elegant simplicity to the design that is missing in the more complex over-strung configuration.

ddf

A one-off piano can be built for $200K. Of necessity building this piano will involve making a certain number of simple jigs and assembly fixtures. With these jigs and assembly fixtures the instrument could be duplicated but it would not be a “production” piano.

From there the expense is in facilities, machinery, production-capable tooling, inventory, marketing, distribution, etc. The size of the investment now depends on projected production quantities. That could be anywhere from $500K to God-only-knows-how-much if you want to build a hundred or a thousand pianos a year. Certainly hard numbers can be had but only after much soul searching, market testing and analysis, etc.

I have given some thought to this over the years—and have some practical experience at it—so if anyone is seriously interested they are welcome to contact me privately.

ddf

I have not heard the Lindner but I have heard the Rippen flat-strung grands. (We sold Rippen pianos back in the 1970s.) My observation at the time was that their mechanical design and engineering was quite good—way ahead of its time—but their scaling and soundboard work was unbelievably poor. It seemed like they would come up with these very interesting concepts for structure and assembly and then toss any old piece of plywood in for a soundboard and put any old hodge-podge of a scale on them.

ddf

It's interesting to see people using CNC machines to machine a custom plate for a piano. This was done with the "Rubenstein" piano where the plate was cut with a water-jet CNC and parts welded together instead of being cast traditionally. (See http://www.rubensteinpianos.com/r371d.html )

I have no idea how this performs, but the availability of CNC devices and 3D printing may bring down the cost of making a 1-up custom piano.

It’s been done a lot longer than that. I’ve been an advocate of steel plates since my time at Baldwin (mid- to late-1980s). Had Baldwin’s management not screwed around in the investment banking business and forced the company into bankruptcy (the first time) Baldwin would have been building virtually all of their vertical pianos with NC cut steel plates.

All of the prototype work I did at Baldwin was done with steel plates. They weren’t NC cut, however. We designed the plate as if it were going to be case then converted it to steel components and had the maintenance shop cut them out and weld them together. In every case the prototype with steel plate sounded better than the subsequent instruments with cast iron plates. I became a convert. Any high-end piano I build will have a steel plate.

ddf

Del,

Did the Fandrich U-122 have a steel plate?

No, but it should have.

ddf

Well, let’s see of this works. If it does then you should see two images of design cartoons—early, incomplete sketches—showing the size and shape of the rims I was writing about earlier.


The short one is 200 cm (6' 7"); the long one is 250 cm (8' 2 1/2").

ddf

Del, Can you describe the difference in sound between the cast and steel plates?

The most obvious difference is in the rate of decay. Pianos with steel plates have a less dramatic dropoff immediately after hammer impact. Particularly in the upper tenor and treble.

ddf

Does all this mean the piano isn't as "loud" as in turn down the volume?
the last thing a "home" piano needs is more volume! I've been in a number
of piano stores..and having the piano demonstrated even a 5ft piano was
exhorbatantly loud..now that's fine if your studying to be a concert pianist
and going to play on the stage as a career..you'd certainly need the
experience of that power on your fingers "under the hood" but not for the average
home user..if you have a car that can go 200mph..yet the speed limits 65
what good is all that power?..someone on this board said their home has soaring 20ft
ceilings...and no one ever asked them to "play louder"...

Loudness is kind of a different issue. Both flat-strung and over-strung pianos could—in theory—be made equally loud. At least through most of the compass in which most people play.

Generally speaking, though, when we bring up the issue of flat-strung pianos it is in the context of those transitional instruments that were built between the end of the wood-framed fortepiano era and the big over-strung “modern” piano era. Most of these instruments still had what, by modern standards, would be called low-tensioned scales, quite light hammers and, considering their scales, relatively heavy soundboards.

This combination does make for a piano with less absolute power. It is quite possible to make modern, over-strung pianos with this combination of scale, hammer and soundboard but most dealers would not want them. They would be afraid they wouldn’t sell because they were not powerful enough to match what they perceive as the competition.

ddf

I leave your question to Del...however I wanted to respond to your comment on the unnecessary power contained in a small piano intended for home or chamber use.

Bravo!

As a design tech, although I have performing pianists in mind for certain instruments, I have a particular interest in designing and re-manufacturing pianos for "private" pianists, who play at home for their own pleasure (maybe with occasional forays "out"), and for chamber musicians who play in small venue chamber settings...(not to mention family members, dogs, cats and guinea pigs who run for cover every time the piano lid opens and the Howitzers begin blasting.)

When chatting with many, or frankly most techs, and demonstrating this type of instrument to them, even mentioning this subject, ie the unnecessary power of most(not all) modern pianos, given the intended setting, results in a fair amount of head shaking, "now,now son someday, you'll understand", disparaging comments on the "sweetness" of the sound, and other comments which indicate a key belief system has been threatened.

The room size sound level you are describing can be achieved in any small grand, mid size, and though I've never done it, I believe larger instruments. Its all a question scale design, tensions, soundboard to match, and hammers,and action leverage, much the same as Del alluded to earlier in this thread regarding clarity and warmth. As well, the "power" you are describing is not necessarily the sole result of pure decibel level, but also a result of the amount of impact noise that is built into a powerful solo recital concert sound.

I love a room sized sound, and be assured,it can be achieved, as long as the design tech can let go of most of his mentored training.

Also know, that not entirely, but for the most part, your best shot at achieving this kind of sound is through a rebuild specifically undertaken with this goal in mind. Piano manufacturers, with some isolated exceptions, cannot "chance" going against the conventional wisdom which says all pianos must project Liszt to the back of a huge hall. The marketers will not let them create markets, only serve markets that already exist.

Your comment is strikingly obvious to those outside the "know", but almost unfathomable to many if not most inside the "know"...Boggles the mind, it does.

Jim Ialeggio

You are, sadly, all too right. It was not always like this, however. When I started working on pianos back in the 1960s the voice of the piano was not nearly so bright and loud. Nor were there all that many people asking for louder pianos. It was pretty rare.

This all started with the influx of Asian pianos with their easy-to-make hard-rock, massive hammers. At first these pianos were criticized by technicians and discerning musicians alike. But gradually dealers figured out how to sell them—power is good, more power is better! Ultimately even companies like Baldwin and Steinway felt they had to follow suit so out came the chemical hardeners. I am hopeful that we are beginning to see a reversal of this trend.



I am regularly dismayed by the many email requests I get from piano owners who are having work done on their pianos and are asking for confirmation that their technician is doing the right thing. Typically it runs something like this: “I have to have the hammers replaced on my Steinway M and my technician plans to put Renner Blue (or some such equally dense and massive) hammers on the piano. I want a very warm, melodic sound and I want the action to have a nice light touch. Is this a good choice of hammers?”

It is always a challenge to come up with diplomatic ways to answer these questions.

ddf

Del, do you recall the grade of steel plate you were using at Baldwin for these trials? Were any studies done on the effects of microstructure of rolled plate relative to cast iron? Carbon content, perhaps?

I have wondered for a long time why the piano industry has had this obsession with various states of aged cast iron, when (particularly new designs), when machining a harp would seem to be so much more economical. The big increase in stiffness would probably let you get away with less material too!

This is an excellent thread btw.

If I have a complaint about my piano, it is too loud. I prefer the piano completely closed for most of my playing, but of course my music desk is disabled.

No, I don’t remember. I can tell you it was nothing special. It was ordered by the maintenance shop through their normal suppliers and we—R&D and Engineering—did not specify anything in particular that I know of.

Subsequently I have used what our steel supplier calls “high-tensile” steel and that is what I plan to use in the next frame I make.




Near as I can tell this obsession is more based on tradition than anything else. And, for mass-produced pianos, cost. Once the foundry is set up pouring and machining gray iron frame is pretty cheap. The largest downside—the rough surface that must be made nearly glass-smooth for aesthetics sake—has largely been done away with by vacuum-casting and by epoxy primers.

Of the two reasons for not considering steel one is real, the other imaginary. The real one is cost; unless the steel operation is highly automated the unit cost of a good steel frame is going to be higher. And, of course, the cost of that highly automated factory would also be quite high.

The other is a fear that the frame would “ring” because steel has a much lower damping factor. Experience has shown that this is more an imagined problem than a real one. Of all the steel frames I’ve worked with none of them—so far—have exhibited a ringing, or resonance, problems. If ever one does there are several ways to deal with them but so far, so good.

And, yes, I do see it as a way to get the weight of a large piano down some while simultaneously increasing its stability.

ddf

Pull the music desk out and put it on top of your closed piano, with some felt underneath. Looks odd, but it works!

Since a while there is a special model available form Petrof, the Monsoon Steel - P232; they use laser or plasma cutting for making a steel frame:

Petrof - Monsoon Steel

schwammerl.

I've seen this link before; very cool though, thanks! Interesting that it is heavier yet has more exposed area for the soundboard; must be thicker, perhaps to circumvent the resonance concerns Del noted above.

Thanks MetalMan, I'll have to try that.

I'd like to see the Petrof-Monsoon bridge. It states that the bridge pins are replaced by Stainless Steel Screws.

Those were concerns, not reality.

ddf

No problem at all.
Here you are (EuroPiano, April-June 2011, p.10):



"Bridge pins are replaced with small stainless steel screws (imbus). The screws are lighter than the pins used before making the bridge more efficient in frequency transmission to the sound board."

"It [the PETROF P 237 Monsoon experimental prototype with steel frame] also has special bridge pins, which in fact are not pins but screws with conical heads that allow the normal angled seating of the strings, although the "pins" stand vertical to the bridge surface."

I would bet that is just another gimmick that does not make an audible difference.

The most beautiful shape of a grand piano frame - simply for aesthetics sake - may be a barless design. Despite of any notable aspects of scaling, statics, choice of material, engineering and production technology, it´s the stunning harp-like resp. harpsichord-like looks of the early fortepianos what makes it so intriguing.

I prefer to judge instruments by how they sound, not how they look.

Fine for you.

BDB, with all due respect a completely dispensable comment.

They look like a buzz waiting to a day after tuning. Are the (imbus) screws adjustable? Do they allow for more or for less down bearing? Wonder if this will make it to USA?

Del, understood from your earlier post! Looking forward to hearing about someone taking you up on $200K for a custom flat strung instrument, assuming I read your earlier posts correctly. If I had the money....in the meantime, my SF10 (complete with Renner Blue hammers, not my choice!) will have to do. I was very fortunate to have a technician spend a lot of time with them (apparently they took in the order of 80 odd pokes each with a needle to tone them down).

My original post asked how a flatstrung piano would look and sound - comprehensively answered - but the next question was who would like one. To answer that we may need another thread with a different slant, but can we clarify which musicians might find it appealing?

To summarise the pianos would sound and look elegant. They would sound well balanced, smooth, warm and clear. The two versions mentioned were 200 cm (6' 7") and 250 cm (8' 2 1/2"). It would certainly be different from any other piano in the showroom.

Possible customers are pianists who want instruments with a "room sized" sound to play at home, soloists, accompanists and chamber musicians?

It would certainly appeal to the accompanist who was the catalyst for this thread. She complains about modern pianos drowning out singers. She has a 1906 Blüthner.

Who do you think would go for such pianos?

The people who have expressed interest in the pianos I’m building fall very roughly into two seemingly disparate groups. The first seems logical; pianists with a primary interest in music written before the advent of the big, powerful “modern” piano. These pianos—either the semi-overstrung version or a flat-strung version—would have a sound much closer to the mid-19th century instruments. Not as light as that of the all-wood fortepiano but not as powerful as the modern overstrung piano either. With the planned very light (by modern standards) hammers the action response will be close, though not identical, to instruments of the same era; light and quick with a moderately shorter keystroke than is common with today’s big, heavy actions.

The other group has kind of surprised me. I’ve had several primarily jazz pianists enquire about them and show some interest in them. Sadly, most jazz pianists can’t afford what these pianos will probably have to sell for.

ddf

This makes complete sense to me, and it is the reason I'm so interested in this type of sound.

The slight reduction in power can allow the piano to be voiced so that the actual pitch of each note as well as each note in a texture, is more clearly defined and perceived. This as opposed to the sound of a powerful modern piano where the percussive content of each note predominates such that the pianist or listener has to supply, from memory, a fair amount of the missing pitch content.

When a jazz pianist plays an improvised set of chord changes, the voice leading can be quite unexpected, unusual, dissonant,etc. Improvising with a piano like we are talking about, allows the pianist to actually play a "duet" with the instrument. He can hear both the pitches being produced, and, for me this is a real biggy, he can clearly discern and play with the upper partial content of the pitch(the upper partials are where dissonant jazz chords coincident partial reside). Further, when the root is only implied, not spoken, as is often the case in jazz, the pitch content of the tones must be crystal clear...percussive-ness obscures this clarity.

For a classical pianist, because the changes are known and practiced many many times, the sound of those chord changes as well as voice leadings are contained in musical memory. It is a memory which is so practiced that it can supply both the missing pitch content and characteristic voice leadings itself without actually clearly hearing it.

This is precisely the reason why, for me, the "complex" sound(as people like to refer to it)that people attribute to "steinway" actually thwarts my musical ear. It is a sound that masks pitch and favor of power.

...My take anyway...

Jim Ialeggio