A Piano Question

[Tal_175]

I was thinking about this question. Piano's are designed in a way that the hammers hit the very end of the strings. The guitar equivalent of this is like always picking near the bridge or only using the bridge pickup (or the middle pickup).

Does anybody know if this is purely a tonal preference? In other words, the hammers placement is optimized for the average case of tonal goals. Or is it also due to design limitations? Like in the middle, the strings' vibration displacement is too large for the hammers to hit a vibrating string precisely. It would be like trying to play fast with 5 gauge strings on a long neck.

Instruments with fingerboards naturally limit the area of strings where you can pluck them comfortably. The middle of the vibrating length of the string has usually limited accessibility due to the fingerboard getting in the way. Likewise, pickups also have to be located in a very narrow range of areas with respect to the string length. This may be less of an issue for bowed instruments since you only need to access the upper area of the strings.

I always thought of this as a limitation of the guitar's design since playing near the middle of the strings give you the choice of a warmer, fatter tone. You'd think they could've designed the pianos so that the hammers are aligned with near the middle of the strings but instead they are placed around the first 1/7'th to 1/9'th of the string length.

[grahambop]

No idea, but I found the article below which might be of interest (not that I fully understand it). I guess the mechanics and acoustics of the piano are sufficiently different that comparisons with the guitar are not straightforward. Or maybe the piano just works better with a brighter tone.

Harold A Conklin Jr: Piano design factors

[John A.]

I was thinking about this question. Piano's are designed so that the hammers hit the very end of the strings. The guitar equivalence of this is like always picking near the bridge or only using the bridge pickup (or the middle pickup).

Does anybody know if this is purely a tonal preference? In other words, the hammers placement is optimized for the average case of tonal goals. Or is it also due to design limitations? Like in the middle, the strings' vibration displacement is too large for the hammers to hit a vibrating string precisely. It would be like trying to play fast with 5 gauge strings on a long neck.

Instruments with fingerboards naturally limit the area of strings where you can pluck them comfortably. The middle of the vibrating length of the string has usually limited accessibility due to the fingerboard getting in the way. Likewise, pickups also have to be located in a very narrow range of areas with respect to the string length. This may be less of an issue for bowed instruments since you only need to access the upper area of the strings.

I always thought of this as a limitation of the guitar's design since playing near the middle of the strings give you the choice of a warmer, fatter tone. You'd think they could've designed the pianos so that the hammers are aligned with near the middle of the strings but instead they are placed around the first 1/7'th to 1/9'th of the string length.

To get the hammers closer to the middle the action would need longer levers, which would require longer key strokes to move. The hammers would also have to rest further from the strings to avoid interfering with the greater amplitude in the center of the string length. The result would be very different action, I suspect, and a less percussive tone. And it's not as if pianos lack mid-range.

John

[Tal_175]

No idea, but I found the article below which might be of interest (not that I fully understand it). I guess the mechanics and acoustics of the piano are sufficiently different that comparisons with the guitar are not straightforward. Or maybe the piano just works better with a brighter tone.

Harold A Conklin Jr: Piano design factors

Yeah, middle-of-the-strings as an always on position would be too tonaly limiting perhaps. An ideal stringed instrument would give the performer a full control over where they play the strings. I guess guitars are more expressive than pianos in this respect. At least there is some range of possibilities to easily access for timbre variation on guitar.

Maybe they should design a jazz piano where the hammers are on the neck position

[Tal_175]

To get the hammers closer to the middle the action would need longer levers, which would require longer key strokes to move. The hammers would also have to rest further from the strings to avoid interfering with the greater amplitude in the center of the string length. The result would be very different action, I suspect, and a less percussive tone. And it's not as if pianos lack mid-range.

John

That's a good point. Mechanical limitation is a factor perhaps. Though you'd think someone would've come up with a very clever design to make that work.

[John A.]

That's a good point. It's mechanical limitation perhaps. Though you'd think someone would've come up with a very clever design to make that work.

There was considerable evolution in the design and engineering of pianos to get to the standard forms we now have. I would not be surprised to learn that what you are talking about has been tried (and rejected).

John

[Tal_175]

I guess the tendency for muddiness (as a factor of where the strings are hit) grows with the soundboard size. A violin or mandolin is much less likely to sound muddy regardless of where you contact the strings compared to a dreadnought. Piano soundboards are 5 to 7 times larger than dreadnoughts.

Looks like the ideal striking ratio (using the terminology of the paper Grahambop linked) is negatively correlated with the soundboard size.

[Gitterbug]

A harpsichord answer to a piano question. Contrary to the piano, a harpsichord's strings are picked, actually with a plectrum at the end of a lever. This also happens near the "bridge". The mechanism is relatively insensitive to how hard a key is hit, so a crescendo calls for more strings to be hit simultaneously. Harpsichord sounds much more like a stringed instrument; it evolved from the finger-picked psalter. BTW, the piano's name in Italian, pianoforte, simply means "quiet-loud". The strings are dampened until you press the sustaining pedal, which enables all the strings to vibrate sympathetically.

[citizenk74]

The system of keys and levers is complex. Varying the length of the hammers introduces a number of mechanical problems, not the least of which is the increased danger of breakage due to the increased length. Replacing a broken hammer is no small task. Piano hammers are made of a very strong and hard wood (Hard Maple) which is selected very carefully for grain alignment. Increasing the length simply increases the chances for a structural failure. The mechanical problems are equally complex in that the standard piano action allows an even action across 88 keys. Any variation in length would result in a variation in action (pressure/velocity). The economics of the situation dictate the outcome. As usual.

[Woody Sound]

Another issue is, placing the hammer at almost the end of the string allows the many rich harmonics to sound. As an experiment, release the damper on a piano and strike a string in the middle. The pitch sounds dull and lifeless. Then do the same thing near the actual hammer spot, and you'll hear that harmonically rich tone with which we are familiar.

[2bornot2bop]

Pianos and guitars are both stringed instruments. Their similarities end there.

The piano is a complex mechanism featuring some 12,000 moving parts, each working in synchronization with the other.

In just the piano action itself there’s 8000 different parts. The reason the piano is struck where it is is because that’s where the keyboard action is located.

Much like a guitars tuners, a pianos pin block secures each string, which is located just above a pianos action.

Each string has a tension between 160-200 pounds, resulting in a total string tension of 35,000 pounds, requiring a strong cast iron frame and a solid back frame to support it.

And although there are 88 keys there’s some 236 strings each varying in diameter. If all the strings in a piano were the same diameter the bass strings would have to be 30 feet long!

I spend too much time at a best friend who builds pianos and rebuilds them for a living.

[rpjazzguitar]

Interesting idea. Might be impossible to build one, but it ought to be possible to do a few experiments and then model one electronically.

I wonder what it would sound like?

[Woody Sound]

And although there are 88 keys there’s some 236 strings each varying in diameter. If all the strings in a piano were the same diameter the bass strings would have to be 30 feet long!

And the string count is a bit confusing the way it's laid out.

The lowest low end of the bottom 3rd of the keyboard (all wound) are single strings. Then the mid-lows have 2 individual strings for each note, then the upper-lows have 3 individual strings per note.

The upper two 3rds of the keyboard is where the string (now all plain) count gets really confusing. While there are 3 "strings" per note, there are technically only 1-1/2 wires per note. From the lowest note of this range, each string wire does "double duty" as 2 "strings." The first wire comprises the first 2 "strings" of the first note, by wrapping around the pin at the far end of the piano, and returning. The 2nd wire is "shared" as the 3rd "string" of the first note, and then the 1st "string" of the next note, by wrapping and returning in between the firsts 2 notes. Finally, the 3rd wire comprises the 2nd and 3rd "strings" of the 2nd note. And so the process continues with the 3rd and 4th notes, then the 5th and 6th notes, etc. Three string wires make up the 6 "strings" of every two consecutive notes. So, we need to understand the different between the number of "strings" and the actual number of string wires, which is really closer to "only" 140 or so.

(BTW, this sharing of wires between every other note has a lot to do with how difficult piano tuning can be.)

[Doctor Jeff]

We had a refurbished baby grand piano--Howard, a "budget" brand of Baldwin--that was 50 years old or so--mahogany--which played and sounded great until it developed some issues with the sustain/damper pedals. I am pretty mechanically inclined, but danged if I could figure out how to fix it. As said above...guitars are complicated, but pianos are a whole 'nother level of complexity.

Finally sold it at consignment and used the proceeds to buy a Yamaha digital which will never require tuning or regular maintenance. And takes up much less space. And has bluetooth to play my iRealBook songs LOL.

Since I am not personally a pianist, that was a win-win.

[2bornot2bop]

We had a refurbished baby grand piano--Howard, a "budget" brand of Baldwin--that was 50 years old or so--mahogany--which played and sounded great until it developed some issues with the sustain/damper pedals. I am pretty mechanically inclined, but danged if I could figure out how to fix it. As said above...guitars are complicated, but pianos are a whole 'nother level of complexity.

Finally sold it at consignment and used the proceeds to buy a Yamaha digital which will never require tuning or regular maintenance. And takes up much less space. And has bluetooth to play my iRealBook songs LOL.

Since I am not personally a pianist, that was a win-win.

Great. The trade off is no digital can duplicate the harmonic complexity or acoustic tonality of an acoustic. They’re not there, and digitals have been around for nearly 30 years. I don’t know if they’ll ever be able to duplicate an acoustic.