Well, no one has called me incredible lately, so maybe I am past my peak.
I have been doing Paulello hybrid scaling full tilt since about 2012. I dove in headfirst with a Steinway B, bought all the wire I needed from Arno Patin, bought his spreadsheet Abacus, and had bass strings with Paulello cores made for that first piano. Looking back, it turned out to be a very good decsion for me to go all in, as I was immensely curious and wanted to learn as much as I could. Arno's spreadsheet was vital to my path of discovery, in that I was able to track and modify as needed, all the usual parameters such as tension (as PBL%), loudness, inharmonicity, as well as track the substitution of wire types. I could graph each one of these parameters.
So early on, I could begin to grasp the larger picture and the various interdependencies that are always affecting one another. I spent a lot of time scaling in the spreadsheets for each piano, often many hours. You learn by doing, and you find out both your freedoms and the limitations of the materials and those the piano itself impose upon you.
I took to heart that the PBL% is the most important variable, and learned that holding to moving into or remaining in the Goldilocks Zone is always going to give me predictable and pleasing results aurally. Like the other variables, smooth and close transitions are to be desired. For the most part, there is little to no conflict between PBL% and the other variables that we attend to. Either way, the piano always tells you what the limits are, but you have more options with PBL% in the mix.
Over time, I have learned that there is more flexibility in how the wire is used than I had thought. The essence of it is, as long as I stay within my defined parameters for PBL%, usually more than one wire type can be used successfully, although each wire type will bring its own changes to the tone of a particular note. For instance, note 27 on the O in discussion could be strung with Type M in a conservative scaling - M is more or less the equivalent of Roslau or Mapes wire. Using Type O will raise the PBL% without changing the other parameters and will improve the tone because that breaking percentage is closer to the Goldilocks Zone. Moving to Type 1 brings the PBL% into the GZ, and sounds the best of all. But each of them work and are acceptable to the ear. I have rebuilt many O's and L's over the decades, most with original scaling, then to rescaling with traditional wires, and finally to hybrid scaling. In hybrid scaling, I have variously taken Type O up to about 39, low 50's, and as high as note 78 before transitioning to M. Each of these methods work and will produce a slightly different sound. Similarly, I have used Paulello's intense use scale, with XM wire for the top 20 notes. The scale does not necessarily call from XM (as some other pianos might), but it does give a different sound, more relaxed and less stressed sounding.
John Schienke asks that you specifiy Paulello cores if you want them, and charges extra for the use of the materials.
i have never used the Typogram other than to play with it, because I am flying blind with all the other variables that I want to attend to.
So Tim, the answer to your original question is that both XM and M will work in the upper treble. If the O of which you speak is situated in a concert setting of heavy use and heavy hands, the XM would be the ticket . Or you might choose it for reasons of tone. In a normal household setting, the M would be the ticket.
------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 09-02-2023 21:25
From: Tim Foster
Subject: Hybrid stringing Steinway model O
Thanks, I followed that thread back when it was active. Will Truitt is incredibly knowledgeable on this subject!
------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074
Original Message:
Sent: 09-02-2023 20:50
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: Hybrid stringing Steinway model O
Will Truitt has extensive experience with Paulello and did 17 posts on this thread Hybrid rescaling with Paulello wires
between 2/12/23 and 2//28/23. They are probably well worth reading. If the link does not work go to the discussions page and put the title in the upper right search box. It took a while but it found the thread which I think started earlier in Feb. (Feb 2nd?)
Paulello makes total sense in theory but I have not yet strung with any of the wire. I do not do as much stringing anymore.
One reason this may be hard to write about is because it involves perception of tone and we all perceive things a little differently. Will Truit has said the results are subtle. I know John Schienke at JD Grandt is doing hybrid core wire on his bass strings but don't know if it is by request only. He is also a Paulello Distributor.
------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299
Original Message:
Sent: 09-02-2023 20:27
From: Horace Greeley
Subject: Hybrid stringing Steinway model O
Hi, Tremaine,
I applaud and second Tim's request.
Kind regards.
Horace
Original Message
Original Message:
Sent: 9/2/2023 8:16:00 PM
From: Tim Foster
Subject: RE: Hybrid stringing Steinway model O
Tremaine,
Thank you for your explanation. I've compared the breaking percentage in Scale Ripper with Paulello's typogram and noted this difference. I'd love to read an in depth article on this subject, but I haven't come across anything yet. I would imagine that studying it is both highly technical on one hand, but fairly subjective on the other when we're considering such subtle differences. Before removing the strings on the O, I put on safety glasses and tuned the lowest plain wire up a perfect 4th. The tone, even on the dead board, became much more vibrant and beautiful at the higher tension. I suspect the hybrid stringing will make the bass/tenor transition much easier to blend as it did on my Knabe.
Have you considered writing a journal article on the subject? I feel like many people would be very interested.
------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074
Original Message:
Sent: 09-02-2023 00:32
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: Hybrid stringing Steinway model O
Tim,
I think one key to answering your question regarding the scale that you posted are the words "Intense Use"; at least with regard to XM in the high treble. Your questions are good ones and it is possible that Paulello has changed his thinking a bit and not changed his Typogram spreadsheet. Certainly Type 1 would be good for notes 27 and 28. I would probably switch to Type 0 on note 29.
You likely already know this but Paulello Stress % is different for what is generally considered as Break % and Paulello Stress numbers tend to run higher than traditional Break % numbers as calculated by the late Dr. Albert Sanderson of Inventronics and Dave Roberts of The Calculating Technician. As I understand Paulello Stress % numbers, they are the optimum state of elasticity for his wire.
Tim and Ryan: Will Truitt, RPT, of New Hampshire has extensive experience stringing with Paulello and if I remember correctly, he states the improvements as subtle but with audible improvement of tone.
------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299
Original Message:
Sent: 08-31-2023 21:31
From: Tim Foster
Subject: Hybrid stringing Steinway model O
I am apprenticing with a very seasoned rebuilder in my chapter. He is teaching his grandson and me his rebuilding method on an early 20th century Steinway model O. He was not familiar with Paulello wires, but would like to try them (I used them with great results on my own rebuild). Paulello has hybrid stringing formulas on his website. Below is the "intense use" version for the Steinway O:
When I input the speaking lengths from the Steinway manual into Paulello's typogram, I'm puzzled at the results. Using type 1 on the four lowest tenor notes (B2-D3) puts the breaking tension of C#3 at 66% and D3 at 70%. Using type 0 would put the same notes at 52% and 55% respectively which falls into his recommended parameters. Why type 1 here? While we are mainly trying to make improvements to the low tenor and will likely use regular wire in the upper treble, I'm wondering why Paulello suggests using XM in the highest treble (F#6-C8) which only puts the breaking point between 50-60% when the typogram recommends this range being in the 70=+% range? Type M makes most notes in this range fall in the mid 60% range which is still below what he recommends. His "normal use" suggestions use type 0 throughout most of the keyboard and type M for D#7-C8). It seems that there is no happy medium here and I am not familiar enough with hybrid scaling theory to wrap my head around the reasons for these seeming discrepancies.
Thanks!
------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074
------------------------------