Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Was this successful?

I've seen a few pianos is my time on this planet, but this is the first bridge like this I've seen. Please look at the photo of the treble bridge.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=16220&item=3766397395&rd=1

Did this configuration produce good strong tone? If so, looks like it may be an easy way of getting tone to the soundboard.

Yes, I like the bridge design, including the hitch pin lengths.

The slight jog in the bridge allows for a more consistant change of the speaking length as the bridge passes under the plate.

NO I don't like the BIG FAT crack in the soundboard, looks like it has opened up quite a bit.

I would question the overall health of the soundboard.

Yes, I agree about the sound board, but I'm not sure if you noticed what I noticed - there are agraffes on the treble bridge to the left of the first "break". I've never seen agraffes on a grand bridge.

On the Lower treble?

The picture is not clear enough. I pulled it into photoshop, still can not make it out. I can see a broken string in the high treble tho....

Sorry to say, the only "agraffs" I have seen on a bridge, have been to repair it.
The design as "original", I have not seen.

Perhaps others here could comment.

I took another look, I see what you are refering to. It is a first for me on a Sohmer.

I am trying to imagine how it would actually change things. Ultimatly, it is still a function of the wooden bridge and the bearing, unless it adds a certian inertia that helps???

I don't usually answer piano design questions but ask yourself this: if this had been a good idea, don't you thing Sohmer for one would have continued with it and wouldn't every other manufacturer have "jumped on the bandwagon" to get this modern marvel of engineering incorporated into their own piano designs?

I have tuned several of these and it seems they all had a big crack in the soundboard just like the one in the picture and none of them sounded very good at all. If a string were to break, it would be a nightmare to replace it. I surely would not want to string one and I don't know of any rebuilder who would. They let them go as "reconditioned", avoiding any true reconstructive work. This one appears to be refinished and that is often what happens in the piano industry to get rid of a piano that serves better as a piece of furniture in front of the picture window than it does as an actual musical instrument. (Notice that I am taking great care to avoid using the quick and dirty designations of "junk" and "PSO". I don't like to see those words used by technicians and carefully avoid them because they become meaningless after being used just a few times).

For this design to work, the part of the soundboard with the agraffes in the bridge would have to have negative bearing. That is, it would be pulling down on the strings. The bass and treble bridges would have the normal positive down bearing, the strings bear downward upon the bridges. How you could manage to have a downward force and an upward one in the same piano is beyond me and maybe that's one reason they had a kind of weird tone, kind of "boingy" is the best I can say for it.

What could be done is for a rebuilder who installs new soundboards to take it and design and craft a conventional soundboard for it. But would it be worth the cost and effort? A "NO" brainer! NO WAY! If you want a nice small grand piano for the price indicated here, go get a Pearl River or something like that. In short, it is a white elephant and even though the ad claims it to be an "extremely low price", I wouldn't pay anything for it and wouldn't want it if you PAID me the initial price offering to TAKE it!

Leave this one for the SUCKERS!

Why must the portion of the sound board under the agraffe/bridge have negative down bearing?

I see the agraffes. I've never seen anything like it or heard about that design in 30 years. Perhaps it was a modification attempted by a restorer in the past in lieu of a proper bridge replacement. If it was an original design, it seems lacking any downbearing on the back of the bridge and destined to make the bridge roll forward, perhaps contributing to the formation of that big soundboard crack in the same region. IOW, your basic bad idea.

By the wording of the auction and the content of the photos, it appears the seller is someone in the business who is just looking to dump this beast. A restorer perhaps who considers it a hopeless rebuilding project but figures it can sell it guilt-free for $2K and function as a piece of furniture which keys move and make something like musical sound. And at $2K a buyer would not have the right to expect more. Ebay is often a dump for white-elephant pianos where the seller wants to put as much distance between himself and the buyer as possible.

That's my take anyway. Anyone else think differently?

Regards,

Rick Clark

I was trying to explain what I had seen in the photos to the German student who is living here for the year, so I opened those photos back up and enlarged them and saw even more reason to RUN THE OTHER WAY!!! Not only is there a big CRACK in the soundboard but the interior has not even been properly cleaned. The case has been refinished but the insides left dirty??? I can't judge the quality of the finish because I can't see the detail enough to do so but often, these kinds of jobs are the cheap and shiny type which are not even appropriate for a piano.

Furthermore, there is a STRING MISSING!!!! in the treble section, the area which is of conventional design. Ask yourself: Who would refinish a piano but not bother to even clean it out and replace a missing string?

DON'T BUY IT!!!

oops I just saw Bill Bremmer's take. So this was a factory design after all. I'm surpised I never encountered one in all my years, but I guess sometimes certain models tend to be more in some regions of the country than others.

I'll never forget the time I "corrected" someone who said that he has genuine original gold-wound bass strings on an old piano, only to find out later that there were actually quite a few of those around the Philly area.

I have absolutely no interest in buying this piano and don't know anyone who is. I thought it was a very interesting design and thought I'd bring it to the attention of the forum.

I'd still like to know why this design requires that the board be under negative down bearing in the area of the agraffe/bridge. Also, to eliminate the "tilting" effect, couldn't the agraffes be installed in the center of the bridge?

Yes, Rick, the Sohmers were an East Coast company with limited production and distribution but be glad you never had to tune one. I was just reading on the Pianotech archives and read one of Jack Wyatt's posts in answer to the topic on Lester pianos being "endorsed" by the Philadelphia orchestra.

The Betsy Ross spinet in another example of the kind of piano which piano techs love to hate and virtually every time I see the name brought up, out come all the "PSO" remarks and I see all the negative comments by all those who like to posture themselves as somehow being "too good" to work on such an unworthy instrument. But Jack has such grace and style. He tells which designs were "bad" but how things improved. He puts a positive spin on the subject of plastic elbows, another "love to hate" topic. He says, "Thank God for plastic elbows, they bought several pairs of shoes for my kids". And that's the way I look at it too. I spell it, "Bet$y Ro$$ Spinet" because I know I can make as much money as many techs make in an entire week in just a half day on a piano many of them would refuse to even take on.

I've heard Jack speak at a PTG convention before and he has a no nonsense way of putting forth some sound and simple logic with a thick Texas drawl to color it. He says, "If they's sumpn y'all don' wann' deww, then make yer prahce hah 'nuff so's ya WILL wann' deww it.!"

But this Sohmer grand with the agraffes in the bridge is the true "Edsel" of the industry. Bad design, nobody wants to lift a finger to do anything with one including me. I am sorry I cannot really explain exactly why the tenor bridge must have negative downbearing, all I know is that it does, or so I have been told. It seems to me that agraffes always pull strings down, never push them up but I really don't see why they couldn't. Perhaps I was told the wrong information, it wouldn't be the first time.

That's why I hesitate to answer piano design questions, it's not my area of expertise. Someone with that expertise will have to say what the reason is. But one thing does seem dubious about that design whether the bearing is positive or negative: it is the agraffe itself which is transmitting the string energy to the bridge rather than the string bearing directly upon the bridge. When you play notes in the conventionally designed portion of such a piano, they sound, well, normal or "conventional". But that whole section with the agraffes in the bridge has an awful tone that is difficult to describe and voicing of any type won't make it go away. I wouldn't wish one of these pianos on anybody. Your theory about the bridge roll is interesting too and supports my observation that every single one of these that I have seen had that same big crack in the soundboard in the same place.

Why can't the string press into the bottom of the agraffe with normal downbearing? I bet the strings hang up at the agraffe, making this a bear to tune.

I've seen one or two cracked sound boards in pianos with conventional bridges.

Someone at Sohmer must have thought that an alternative to the traditional design was a good idea, and, obviously, was able to convice enough experts within that oraganzation that it made good sense to try it. They must then have created prototypes and listened to them and then decided to put them into production. What makes it even more amazing is that they did it under the nearly-absolute power that "tradition" commands in the piano industry.

Like those innovative Sohmer folks, I find the idea quite attractive for several reasons.

1. Potential flexibility in adjusting down bearing of individual notes - up/down adjusted by turning agraffe in a fine-threaded sleeve which is itself first screwed or glued into the bridge.

2. If ease of stringing is an issue, then maybe one could use only the bottom portion of the agraffe (the cut-off being a little more than half way up the holes). The hole shape, contact surface, and angle design could be altered to give the best string bearing.

3. Various materials of construction could be tried to increase efficiency of sound transmission. Maybe a very hard, light alloy (titanium alloy) would be more appropriate to transmit the sound. (Although sound trasmission through steel is very fast and efficient.)

4. More-accurate string speaking length.

5. No more bridge drilling, pinning, and notching.

6. Maybe less bridge cracking.

As far as the string "hanging up" goes, considering the tortuous path that the string must now take in the traditional design, I'll bet tuning would be far easier with the straight shot from agraffe to agraffe to hitch pin. Duplex portion would of course have to be taken into account, however.

Well, I see now why you were so interested in this design. Perhaps one of the design contributors like Del will weigh in. I wrote Jack Wyatt to see what he knows.

I've seen this sort of thing in an old Hallet Davis grand. Other than that, there was nothing special about the piano.

Of course, Blüthners have this sort of arrangement for their aliquot strings.

@BDB: It is better to say that Blüthner used to have a similar arrangement for the 4th "Aliquot" string. Interestingly this "bridge agraffe" worked with positive bearing which makes sence because the other 3 strings were attached to the bride the normal way with bridge pins. The moderen Aliquot design is a little simpler: the Aliquot string is attached to the bridge with a normal bridge pin as well but the capo bar is shaped in such a way that this 4th string has a little lower angle to the bridge so it doesn't get struck by the hammer.

@all: It may be interesting to you that the contemporary Australian piano maker by the name of "Stuart & Sons" uses a similar design of bridge agraffes (sucsessfully as it seems). They claim to get a clearer tone because of this arrangement.

I understand that it is easy to have a bias against such a design when one knows of some bad examples. But generally I think it is not a bad idea to think about possible improvements in the sound when such bridge agraffes are used.

Best regards,
Jens

Jens,
Thank you very much for that wonderful piece of information. It is absolutely "spot on" with this discussion.

After visiting the Stuart web site,:

http://www.stuartandsons.com/pages/home.html

I feel like I've been living in a cave for the last 10 years! In this case ignorace is definitely NOT bliss. In short, Stuart has taken this whole agraffe-bridge design to a level I never imagined existed - there's a little design universe in that little agraffe!

Anyone interested in this topic should go to the "Movies" page of the site and download the "Medium" file whose name will show up as "Stuart_Piano_large.mp4" In case you don't have an mp4 player (I sure didn't!), you can go here:
http://www.hwsetup.it/software/video/vari/index.htm

and download this Philips palyer (free)

http://www.hwsetup.it/files/download/player/Platform4_Player_3.0.zip

Unzip the player, run the exe file and, during installation, select "mp4" for the media file to run with this application.
Then double-click on the down-loaded Stuart mp4 and sit back and enjoy a truly wonderful little video.

In short order Stuart goes into a detailed description of his agraffe-bridge system because apparently it is the heart of his piano's tone technology.

I'm very excited and truly fascinated by this wonderful video clip and I very much want to play one of those fantastic looking AND SOUNDING instruments! Anyone know if they're sold in this country?

I'd very much like to hear what others have to say after they watch that video.

I, they are not sold in th USA. You can place an order for one and have it shipped though.

I've heard that the Stuarts have an incredible sound, completely different than what conventional pianos have. There are CDs available where they are used, but I haven't had the pleasure of listening to them.

As for the Sohmer, a gentleman who lives near me has a piano similar to the one in question. He has told me that one of the problems with it, no matter how it is rescaled, is that the strings in the upper treble are at a point very close to maximum tension (before breaking). Such high tension would almost certainly have something to do with the tendency to crack soundboards.

Get a Stuart instead--if you've got a few hundred thousand dollars lying around.

Dave Stahl

No, cracked soundboards are caused by the way they are constructed, with the grain across the grain of the ribs. Tension has nothing to do with it. If strings break because of tension, it's because the length of the string is too long for the note. It has nothing to do with the actual tension of the note, just the relation of the tension to the size of the string. Strings should be less than the elastic limit, which is about half the breaking strength.

Here's a photo of the agraffe I made by cropping a "screen capture" of the paused medium-sized Stuart video clip (fascinating!):

I guess the price is just a bit out of my league.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/20/1077072833664.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true

WOW!!! I was skeptical at first but when I saw that outtake of the agraffes, I knew this was something out of the ordinary. This is a FAR CRY from the Sohmer idea. But I can see now where the curiosity was. The answer to the original question is obviously, "no", the idea was not successful but I sure hope that Stuart & Sons can make a go of it. Those pianos belong in the finest concert halls!

In case you're getting the "Registration" page from that link, here's the article:




Rollover, Beethoven

February 23, 2004

An Australian piano is recreating the sound of Napoleonic times, writes Barney Zwartz.

An Australian epic is supposed to be about laconic outback types vanquishing impossible odds. This epic certainly features some indomitable Australians but they made a great deal of noise - enough to fill three CDs. The cast is entirely Australian, apart from one Austrian, which is near enough. But he gets top billing: Ludwig van Beethoven.

The Australian protagonists are pianist Gerard Willems, conductor Antony Walker, producer Brendan Ward, the musicians of Sinfonia Australis, the team at ABC Classics and, last but not least, the Australian designed and built Stuart piano.

Ward, Willems and the Stuart were partners for several years in the first Australian recordings of the complete sonatas for solo piano - three three-CD sets, of which two won ARIA awards and all won considerable acclaim. But to finish the collection with the five concertos for piano and orchestra was problematic.

The number of performers went from one to dozens, which takes deep pockets. Australia Post eventually resolved that, giving $50,000 in exchange for holding a talent search and the use of its logo on the CD cover - almost unprecedented for the ABC, according to artists and repertoire manager Lyle Chan.

Then pianist and conductor had to decide interpretive issues: which text to use, how big an orchestra to use and performance practice. Says Chan: "If conductor and soloist know each other well and are sympathetic musically, it takes less time, and that was the case. If you work together a lot it only needs a flick of the eyebrow."

The orchestra used modern instruments to match the piano but played them according to the style of Beethoven's day, the turn of the 19th century. The score the team chose was the Barenreiter edition that features the latest research. For Willems, it was revelatory. This instrument is sublimely suited for this repertoire. This is the sort of thing Beethoven would have wished to have had in his time.
GERARD WILLEMS "In that edition, it's baffling when you hear recordings by the greatest artists, such as (Alfred) Brendel and more modern pianists like (Andras) Schiff and (Maurizio) Pollini.

"These people have not appreciated the phrasing that Beethoven wrote in a lot of the writing. They play over the phrase rather than articulating on the phrase with a little air pause. "It's like articulating consonants very clearly rather than half swallowing them - for example, with Mit-ta-gong, you pronounce the double 't'."

Here the Stuart piano is perhaps the chief protagonist. It has an utterly different sound to other modern pianos, and Willems is convinced it is what Beethoven heard in his inner ear. "He wished for great clarity, great sensitivity, so you have full control over the dynamic range. (Other) modern pianos have diminished that," he says.

Pianos, dominated by the Steinway sound, have evolved considerably since Beethoven's time, but there is a cost in tonal colour, Willems says. In the old fortepianos, base notes sound like a bassoon, the central section like oboes and clarinets and the top parts like flutes. "The separation of sound quality between note textures is so significant on these old instruments, and it's something Steinway has tried to minimise. With the Stuart we are going back to the sound concept of the 17th and 18th centuries, when instruments were far more clearly transparent.

"We are dealing with the age of enlightenment. Nothing is hidden, everything is open. This instrument is sublimely suited for this repertoire. This is the sort of thing Beethoven would have wished to have had in his time."

Willems believes the Stuart has helped restore individuality. "In the old days you could immediately identify certain people's playing. To a large extent we've lost that. Recording studios make them play the same way. This is where Wayne Stuart has taken the great risk of creating the piano. It's a great challenge and risk to do this, to reinvent the wheel and let people have another voice."

Stuart believes the instrument needed another evolutionary step. "I felt, after studying with international piano makers, that it had become moribund," he says. "Technological advances in the 20th century and intellectual developments and changes in fashion of music performance seemed to be screaming for a new piano sound."

He set out to build a piano with the robustness and dynamic range early pianos lacked, combined with the sustaining power of modern grands and, above all, with the clarity contemporary music demands. "Contemporary music is interested in the physics of sound. The standard piano, a la Steinway, is a very thick, muddy sound, and gets the power from a lot of noise. But that is the soundscape of our great-grandfathers."

He began the research project in Melbourne at the old Preston TAFE in 1992, then moved to Newcastle University. Six years later, he established Piano Australia. He has made only 25 pianos - they take a year to build and cost $130,000 to $200,000.

It's been a commercial venture almost since the start: Stuart had to build pianos and sell them to run the research. "It has done phenomenal things for Australian music. No one would have dared do the Beethoven sonatas as Gerard did unless we were able to make a new statement." The success of the sonatas astonished ABC Classics. The first volume sold more than 25,000 copies. Robert Patterson, head of ABC Classics, says: "They captivated people's imagination."

The concertos set has sold more than 5000 copies in two months, with a DVD of the Emperor concerto to come later this year. So, as an epic should, it all ends happily - like the concertos. Willems concludes: "It's a Napoleonic sound. These concertos were written in Napoleonic times, and the music Napoleon used marching ahead of his troops had a brazen quality which gives a great sense of optimisim and of being alive. That's what we have tried to recreate."


This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/20/1077072833664.html

Ish,

Even though it is against the rules, maybe post an abridged version of this in the PW Piano Forum. I'm sure you'll get lots of interst there too!!

Thanks

From 1978-1997 I had a 1915 Sohmer 6' which looked identical to the piano pictured. The tone tended to be quite woody in the section with the agraffes on the bridge. Mine didn't have any cracks in the soundboard, though...and the original ivories and ebonies were in nice shape.

I felt a bit of nostalgia in seeing that photo. Thanks for posting it.

[img] i [/img]

Help, im tring to find url for photo I would like to post here about Sohmer's agraffe bridge. how do you up-load, I,m lost

It's rediculus to think there is negetive bearing on Sohmer's agraffe bridge. I own a 5' 10" and even though strings are pulling up on the bridge agraffe, the back/overall-height of bridge in relation to front and rear bearing points determine downbearing. this simple system confuses people/techs because strings are definately pulling up on bridge agraffe's, it's probably the reason it never caught on, {lack of understanding},also, it's immposible to measure downbearing with traditional methods, wish I could up-load the drawing I have, it makes perfect sense.
My Sohmer grand is a great piano as are most of this lenght, I rebuilt mine , no cracks anywhere, great tone, also, I measured downbearing as tension was applied, these bridges work well as evident per Stuart's Grand piano's. ALL statement's suggesting negitive bearing or defunct design are totally wrong.
BTW-restringing was easier because the agraffe's holds the strings on the hitch pins until tension is applied.

Here's how to post a photo:

Go to a free photo hosting site. (I use www.photobucket.com )

Make an account.

Upload your photos.

Photobucket will give you a URL that leads to your photo.

Take that URL, and put in inbetween the [img][/img] tags here on the forum in your post.

I believe the Sohmer does have reverse crown designed into the board. I believe my mentor has rebuilt one and might even have one in his shop. I'll ask.

bump

bump 2

bump 3

[IMG]http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/
l148/synthnut_2006/img_1158.jpg[/IMG]

Make sure the URL ends in lowercase letters: xxx.jpg works, xxx.JPG does not (seems to be a bug in the site here).

You can check by previewing the post: if the image doesn't show up in preview, it won't show up when posted.

--Cy--

time to give up

edit: Never mind.

Here you are. I searched for your album in photobucket and found the image:

That's kind of you, Frank.

I see your point, synthnut: even though the string pulls up on the bridge agraffe, both bridge bearing points are above the line from front agraffe to hitch pin.

That's putting some serious roll on the bridge, though, no? Lifting at the front, and pushing down on the rear?

There are sure many problems with pinned bridges, such as false beats. I'm interested to see new ideas. Even the added mass of the agraffes on the bridge can improve sustain.

--Cy--

Hey thanks frank, just could'nt post it for some reason, anyways, I'm sure everyone can understand this pic and how it might confuse people into thinking there's a negative downbearing, it would hardly make sense because the full upper treble break is a traditional bridge, a negative/positive would snap bridge at that point, I believe Sohmer used this bridge design for 10 to 15 years.
Bear in mine the drawing over emphasizes height and potential downbearing. Bridge roll may cause cracks, however, mine is perfect, tone quality is bright with lots of harmonic overtones, no noticable difference at treble/triditional bridge break, my 1924 5' 10" turned out great, solid inner construction, however, case design is less than stellar.
Thank again for all the help with posting, I'll get it all figured out next time I hope.......newbe

Interesting to note that a under-the-soundboard 3/8" maple bridge support follows this agraffe bridge the entire lenght, mortised through soungboard ribs would seem to counteract any roll that may be present