Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Fazioli and Steinway - side by side

I've heard others say this as well and I wonder where it comes from. Inharmonicity is a function of scaling (string length, diameter and tension) and since the scaling is similar—not identical but not all that different—for both instruments inharmonicity will also be similar.

ddf

So you did compare precisely the scale with a similar length instrument ? What is considered standard level and progression by octave, for you ?

Regards

I have not measured the Fazioli note-by-note but I have examined them fairly carefully and, after 50+ years of examining piano string scales, I’m experienced enough at this to be aware of significant differences if they existed.

The comparison here is between two instruments of similar length—both concert grands—and with very similar scaling. That is, their note-by-note string lengths do not differ by all that much. Certainly not enough to justify the claim that the Fazioli has “really low” inharmonicity. There are certainly differences in their design and construction that account for their performance variances but their stringing scales are not all that much different. The Fazioli probably has a smoother inharmonicity curve—the sweep of the bridge looks to be a little closer to a log progression—but that is not the same thing as having “really low” inharmonicity. So, again, I’m just curious why so many people believe this to be the case.

ddf

Del, thank you for answering

The low iH is noticed when tuning, with beat speed progression

Now if pat could "measure" the iH constant with a software, for A4 , 5 6. That may be could give us a clue.

AFter reading what Klaus Fenner wrote on the relation between lenghts lenghts progression, tension progressions, stretch level, it seem that iH does not need to change so much to be perceived as low.

As you may know, differnt types of progression have been used, that will provide differnt iH progressions.

What Fenner state is that the ear is expecting a certain amount of iH that help to sustain the pitch impression for the ear, and that when the iH is lower (the tone is cleaner, and more "straight" it can be perceived as a lack of coloration.

The amount of dynamic nucances also depend a lot of the lenght of the scale, tension, and stretch.

Surprising, the stretch is considered as an important parameter as it relates to the amount of energy transmission (hence small pianos having a very efficient scale if well designed)

Simply stated it is the too long string that will be too supple and will not provide a rigid enough strike point, then, part of the impact energy is absorbed in the wire and turn to heat, not tone.

I understandthat some counter act that by making stiffer soundboards, but seem to me the German makers are more subtle in regard of the scaling and will make low tension or high tension scales with the corresponding panel assembly.

High tension can provide low iH depending of the wire diameters .

I believe that a certain amount of iH progression is planned in any case.

I would not be surprised that the scaling was changed also at some point, any piano maker expect his pianos to evolve.

I tuned Faziolis that where having some iH, low indeed (a little less than Yamaha for instance)possibly at the edge of acceptability and obtained with high tension hence a very good energy use.

If by chance you have lenghts of the A's I would be interested to see them.

Tone coloration is obtained with the case, plate, certainly more than we think.

It is very interesting to compare good pianos from different eras and the same brand.

From 1900 xx to 1970 you can hear the tone getting cleaner and cleaner.

Asking all the "tone" job to the soundboard seem to appear at some point. It gives the same result as those fiber glass drums (congas) with a synthetic leather.

Any wooden one have a warmer tone.

Tone warmness is partially located in the hammer, but a piano can only give what he produce, at some point, the voicer mostly can hide what is displeasing.

Best regards

I agree with this. Tuning a Fazioli, aurally, is an experience as unique as the instrument itself. I cannot explain the low iH phenomenon. It's a part of the Fazioli mystique.

The thing you notice is that you can forget "adding stretch" .
That make those pianos easier to tune for some tuners that are more used to "pure" octaves.

I would bet that this tendency to add 1/3 beat or more relates to the very little slipping of the instrument that occur.

When the pin setting is not locking perfectly the upper segment this may even be noticed more so the enlarged octave is at the same time helping to obtain more easily the progressiveness of fast beating intervals and gives some leeway for the lowering due to tensionning.

There is also (to be proved) metal memory and reaction. probably Nil with impact tuning levers, but some may remain with usual tuning, and the pin release some stress once the note is tuned.

It would be interesting to measure precisely.

Pardon the intrusion, but is this low iH phenomenon on Faziolis a measured phenomenon, or a subjective one? By that I mean, are the harmonics actually different between the Fazioli and the Steinway - as measured by an ETD? Or if what Del says is correct and the scaling is very similar, is it perhaps the relative strength of the fundamental and prominence of other specific harmonics which leads to the Fazioli having a more pure sound, and thereby, an apparently lower iH? Could this be considered more of a construction/soundboard thing which emphasises the fundamental and certain harmonics, rather than an outright difference in iH?

Inharmonicity can only be detected in comparison with other instruments, including electronic measuring devices. There may be a few people whose pitch sensitivity is so acute that they could detect a difference, but those people are few and far between. So whenever somebody talks about hearing the difference in inharmonicity in different pianos, I get very skeptical.

Thanks for the post, ando. It is no intrusion. Del's guesses are better than most techs' facts, including my own. I would not dispute him. The science is clear enough.
I can only go by what I hear. "Low iH" occurs when the partials are closer to being harmonics; in other words, the degree to which the frequencies of partials vary from the fundamental in the Fazioli appears to be much less than in other pianos when tuned aurally.

Do others find the Faziolis 'cold' sounding, in recordings?

Dunno about recordings, but "yes" to in person.

I played recently a Fazioli 212 and a Hamburg B, in the same room side by side... and the first beats clearly in all aspects: power (specially bass), sustain, dynamics, responsiveness of the action... but (this perfection) can be perceived as TOO COLD sometimes.
Without doubt, overall, I prefer the complex and warm sound of Steingraebers.

That's interesting. I've never played a Steingraeber grand, and would love to try one, including of course the Phoenix with carbon fibre sound board. There's a nice recording of a 272 here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0hWB6j4iTI A complex and interesting sound, and not 'cold'.

And another nice Steingraeber here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vul_EPf9Dj4

Warm and rich, and a delight to listen to. Super meaty bass at 3:36. (I am listening through good headphones)

And another nice Steingraeber here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vul_EPf9Dj4

Warm and rich, and a delight to listen to. Super meaty bass at 3:21 and 3:36. (I am listening through good headphones)

Good evening, David. Yes. I have one or two CDs that are less than thrilling. Had attributed this to poor recording. Question: Have you listened to the "500th Fazioli CD" that was aired on Performance Today / NPR?

Here's a typically powerful, rich and clear Fazioli piano sound:

http://youtu.be/tH6za0Cp4RA

Louis Lortie is one of several classical concert pianists who've 'converted' to Fazioli from Steinway in recent years.

Bob and bennevis, thank you for those observations. I haven't heard the 500th Fazioli CD, and will look into it.

I can't really fault the sound in the Louis Lortie! I heard him play the Chopin Etudes live a year or so ago, on a Steinway D. A truly superb performance, and I've heard a few different pianists play them live.

It has been my observation that inharmonicity gets the blame and/or credit for a lot of things that it is not always responsible for. In this case we are told one piano has really low inharmonicity—relative to another with a very similar string scale—because it tunes differently than another.

It might be useful here to point out that two pianos of the same make and model but with different hammers and/or hammer voicing will also tune differently. Can we still claim a causal link between these tuning differences and string inharmonicity when the scaling (and inharmonicity) are—barring manufacturing variations—identical? It seems to me we must look for, and find, another explanation. Is it not possible that our ears are focusing on different harmonics within similar spectra as they are either emphasized or diminished by the differences in hammers and/or voicing?

We do not hear inharmonicity; we hear the effect of inharmonicity on the harmonic spectrum created by a struck string relative to its fundamental pitch. The number of partials excited within a given struck string and the relative power in each of them changes considerably depending on the physical characteristics of the hammer doing the striking. (And on the intensity of the impact.) A relatively hard hammer will excite a more of the higher partials and there will be more energy in them while a relatively softer hammer will excite fewer of the higher partials and there will be more energy in the fundamental and lower partials. This fundamental difference in the wave envelope excited by the two different hammer types determines how we classify a piano’s sound.

In this example it is not the inharmonicity constant of the strings that is changing—at least not by much—but the number of the string partials excited and the relative amount of energy in each of them. Our perception of tone quality and of pitch is influenced by the overall mix of the harmonics detected by our ears and analyzed by our brains.

While this effect is present across the compass of the piano it is particularly noticeable in the lower bass sections of shorter pianos where the higher string partials of a struck string can actually have a pitch closer to the fundamental of the next higher note than to the fundamental of the string actually struck. The wise scale designer will do what he/she can to keep inharmonicity as low as is practical through the bass section scaling.

But the same phenomena also influences our perception of pitch higher up in the scale. Fazioli pianos—at least the ones I’ve heard—tend to be voiced very bright; i.e., with an emphasis on the higher harmonics of the notes struck. Steinways not so much. I’m wondering just how much of the tuning approach we take with the two different pianos has to do with voicing as opposed to any relatively small differences in inharmonicity.

ddf

I am deceived by this answer the ih of a tone is noticed in the amount of purity and largeness. Now the debate have not gained the single interesting fact.

And even more when tuning.

Not only due to the scale, also the soundboard participates. The hammers as soon they are normal hammers (with power) may influence the perception, providing more or less partials.

But they will not change the ih. Only in basses probably. And for other reasons.