Talk:Innovations in the piano

David Stanwood is a very highly-respected technician who has innovated modifications to standard grand piano actions that are supposed to make it possible to achieve much more even regulation and to make playing much easier, with greater control. Whoever controls this page should consider mentioning him. http://www.stanwoodpiano.com/first.htm


 * Well, of course no one "controls" this page, but I wrote most of it, working out of Larry Fine's book.


 * Thank you for pointing out this gap in the article. Larry Fine also speaks very well of Stanwood.  I didn't include Stanwood because I found it difficult to understand what his system actually does.  Maybe you can help?


 * In any event, I'll try to work on this gap soon, if no one else does first. Opus33 06:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Bridge agraffes
 The American company, Sohmer, along with Bluthner in Europe, among others, applied this idea to the string termination on the bridge in pianos, beginning in the 1890's, where bridge pins are ordinarily used.

In Rapports du jury mixte international from the Paris Universal Exposition in 1855, they list Erard, Herce et Mainé, and Aucher displaying pianos with agraffe bridges. Mireut 15:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest Developments
''Susan Hallbeck, associate professor of industrial and management systems engineering, and assistant music professor Brenda Wristen are studying how a smaller piano keyboard may prevent stress injuries in small-handed pianists. (A small-handed pianist’s hand spans eight inches or less from the thumb to the pinky finger.)''

This section seems to be a press release. One of the advantages (and manufacturing difficulties) from Janko's version of whole-tone piano keyboards was 12.5cm wide octaves instead of 16-16.5. Since 7/8-size keyboards are currently available, I suggest the section be reduced to a footnote to a section on Steinbuhler. -Mireut 16:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This section seems like a press release because it is a press release, or more accuractly an article. It's blatantly plaguerized from here. I don't mind if there's some reference to smaller pianos in this article, but not like this, I'm removing the material but invite someone the readd some more encyclopedic info. Vicarious 23:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And the result has been that for the past 7 years there hasn't been a section on smaller pianos in this article. Brilliant. Contact Basemetal   here  07:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Actions with springs acting between the hammer butt and jack
"Joseph Henry Cary in 1853 (patent No. 2283) invented a simple contrivance for repetition in all pianos, neglected at the time, and subsequently repatented and disputed over by others, which has only been preserved in the records of the patent office, while the inventor has left no other mark. But the utility of the invention has come to light. It is increasingly used in the actions of upright pianos, and, in combination with the old English grand action, is successfully competing with the Erard action proper and the simplified Herz-Erard, of late years so very generally employed." (Schlesinger and Hipkins, "Pianoforte" Encylopedia Britannica 11 ed.) Similar actions are found in old Esteys, Mason & Hamlin, Ludwig, so perhaps deserve mention in "Fandrich Vertical action" like previous bridge agraffes for Stewart. -Mireut 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

New search from Google turned up F. A. Lingsch Pianoforte action, US 788482

cleanup
I noticed the cleanup tag got removed because I didn't elaborate on what needed cleaned up. I thought it was apparent but clearly I'm mistaken. The article needs an intro that's longer than one sentence. The "Acoustic and mechanical innovations" section is too large, disconnected, and POV (with statements like "free spirit among the great pedigreed German piano firms"). The resources section should be transformed as much as possible into a references section and tied to the related portions of the article. Also, at least one picture would be nice, if nothing else a picture of a piano would be pleasant. Vicarious 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Four strings
Borgato pianos also feature four strings per note in the treble section

Not strictly innovative, I think Streicher criticised the four string pianos made by one of their competitors in 1820s... Here's a more recent one, Förster Quattrochord - Mireut 14:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Luis Casali player ca.1900 http://hammerfluegel.net/viewer.php?albid=343&stage=3&pn=1 - Mireut 13:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplex
The idea behind duplex scaling, invented by Theodore Steinway in 1872, is that the non-speaking portion of the string, located between the non-speaking bridge pin and the hitch pin (formerly considered the "waste end" and thus damped with a strip of cloth), resounds in sympathy with the vibrating portion of the string.

The patent (US126,848) only claims bringing these lengths in harmony (actually he only specifies length proportions that would sound octaves - "1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16..."), not having them sound:


 * What I claim as new, and desire to secure by Letters Patent, is -
 * 1. The arrangement, in a piano-forte, of a series of successive strings, in each of which the vibrations of that portion situated between the agraffe and tuning-pin are brought in harmony with the vibrations of the main section of the string, substantially as described.
 * 2. The arrangement, in a piano-forte, of a succession of strings, in each of which the longitudnal vibrations of that portion of the string situated between the extreme edge of the sounding-board bridge and the hitch-pin are brought in harmony with the vibrations of the main section of the string, substantially as described.

- Mireut 21:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Mireut, can you please explain the purpose of your last edit? That is, what ought we to be changing in the discussion of tunable duplex scaling?  Thanks, Opus33 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Steinway patented putting front and rear lengths in harmony, and the idea behind not muting was invented by Taskin or someone earlier. Maybe if it was closer to this it would put the precedent, detail and reasons for use more in keeping with the rest of the article:


 * Mason and Hamlin and Fazioli employ individually tuned duplexes to bring the secondary lengths of strings between the bridge and the hitchpins, as well as the agraffes or capo bar and the tuning pins to vibrate sympathetically in exact harmonic proportion to the sounding portions of the same string instead of tuning the secondary lengths arbitrarily or muting them off. C. F. T. Steinway patented the principle in 1874, but Mason & Hamlin claim that individually tuned duplexes yield a more harmonically accurate and pleasing sound{http://www.masonhamlin.com/craftsmanship/} than Steinway's duplex bars where the metal terminations used determining these lengths are formed in sections, which restricts the accuracy with which each length can be adjusted relative to tolerances in the positions of the the bridges or agraffes. In their rear duplexes, Mason & Hamlin use individual half-round aliquots, and have improved upon the early system used by Steinway & Sons by introducing a flat metal plate between the aliquots and the painted iron frame. More recently Fazioli introduced a patented system with guides formed in the stainless steel mounting plate which makes the aliquots easier to adjust under string tension, and in 2006 the Carl Sauter piano company patented a similar system for front duplexes,{Stefan Schnitzer, 2006.07.27, DE102005002019} both of which can be used for periodic, non-factory adjustment. - Mireut 20:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Larry Fine
Hello, I think we are on safe ground citing Fine for the frequency of use of the Steinway by concert pianists. Um, have you read him? He is a very thoughtful and well-informed writer, and certainly has no bias in favor of Steinways: the book is filled with complaints about their manufacturing defects and quality control problems. Opus33 (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Fine is fine as a reliable source—no argument. However, the word 'standard' is a word I wish to reserve for its more precise usage: an agreed-upon list of traits and specifications set by an industry-wide committee of experts, a standards body. The Steinway is not that; it is instead customary, commonly-seen, conventional, popular, prevailing, representative, usual, most typical. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Innovations
The Fandrich vertical action is not an innovation. This isn't to say it is not a good one! But the "intent" to produce a vertical action with the same touch as a grand is not the same as achieving it. This action is merely one of many similar vertical action designs.

The Kawai composite action may prove to have been an "innovation", once trees have disappeared from the planet; but that remains to be seen. Still, I am willing to leave it but cannot accept the spurious claim that actions made from wood are unstable--or even "less" stable than a composite. The typical maintenance that actions need have little to do with humidity fluctuation (and keep in mind that humidity also affects the entire instrument with respect to the action), and more to do with use (not to mention gravity). And composite materials are completely unproven, particularly against the backdrop of more than a century of highly stable wooden parts use.

I'm of a mind to remove both these references unless someone can offer a compelling reason to leave them. Joelthesecond (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Other materials
Perhaps a section on alternate materials. For example, Steinway makes its rims out of plywood, instead of the solid spruce preferred by higher-end manufacturers. And Steinway's "Boston" and "Essex" pianos make many parts, such as the top, out of Fibreboard (MDF) like IKEA furniture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.24.250 (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Show your sources or cease trying to smear Steinway. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)