Pianotech

Hello everyone,

This piano, a 5'1" Schomacker baby from 1911, has been in the works for a while. It'll leave my shop on Wednesday and go back to its owner. Peter Grey asked if I'd make a comparison recording of the same piano and same repertoire played to two different tunings. Admittedly, I tuned very fast today and a few unisons are subpar, but you'll get the idea. While there is some voicing left to do, I'll do it in the client's house to his taste.

ET samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Equal Temperament, sound samples

Modified Kirnberger III samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Modified Kirnberger III temperament, sound samples

I rebuilt the piano and kept the original soundboard. New WNG repetitions, shanks/flanges, Ronsen bacon hammers voiced with shellac, rescaled by JD Grandt, bass bridge modified (removed apron and shorted speaking length/increased back scale length), hybrid restringing with Paulello wire. I was surprised the client was willing to put this much into the piano, but he knew it wouldn't be worth what he put into it. It really is a gem, though.

Please let me know your thoughts on the tuning comparison. 

Hello everyone,

This piano, a 5'1" Schomacker baby from 1911, has been in the works for a while. It'll leave my shop on Wednesday and go back to its owner. Peter Grey asked if I'd make a comparison recording of the same piano and same repertoire played to two different tunings. Admittedly, I tuned very fast today and a few unisons are subpar, but you'll get the idea. While there is some voicing left to do, I'll do it in the client's house to his taste.

ET samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Equal Temperament, sound samples

Modified Kirnberger III samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Modified Kirnberger III temperament, sound samples

I rebuilt the piano and kept the original soundboard. New WNG repetitions, shanks/flanges, Ronsen bacon hammers voiced with shellac, rescaled by JD Grandt, bass bridge modified (removed apron and shorted speaking length/increased back scale length), hybrid restringing with Paulello wire. I was surprised the client was willing to put this much into the piano, but he knew it wouldn't be worth what he put into it. It really is a gem, though.

Please let me know your thoughts on the tuning comparison. 

Hello everyone,

This piano, a 5'1" Schomacker baby from 1911, has been in the works for a while. It'll leave my shop on Wednesday and go back to its owner. Peter Grey asked if I'd make a comparison recording of the same piano and same repertoire played to two different tunings. Admittedly, I tuned very fast today and a few unisons are subpar, but you'll get the idea. While there is some voicing left to do, I'll do it in the client's house to his taste.

ET samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Equal Temperament, sound samples

Modified Kirnberger III samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Modified Kirnberger III temperament, sound samples

I rebuilt the piano and kept the original soundboard. New WNG repetitions, shanks/flanges, Ronsen bacon hammers voiced with shellac, rescaled by JD Grandt, bass bridge modified (removed apron and shorted speaking length/increased back scale length), hybrid restringing with Paulello wire. I was surprised the client was willing to put this much into the piano, but he knew it wouldn't be worth what he put into it. It really is a gem, though.

Please let me know your thoughts on the tuning comparison. 

Hi Stewart,

Thank you! I changed the bass bridge for two reasons, 1. I attended a class that Del Fandrich taught where I was convinced the cantilever really doesn't help the tone, in many cases hurts it, 2. I started disassembling the piano and realized the apron was delaminating. I figured this warranted some experimentation!

I removed the apron and removed the cap with a table saw. I then flattened and glued/doweled a new base with maple from an old back action. After restringing the long bridge and short tenor bridge (yes, a three bridge baby!), I was able to set the bass bridge in its new (previously marked and prepared) location and set downbearing. Since it did not need to be fastened under the plate, I was able to remove material from the bottom with a jointer to arrive at my desired downbearing on the soundboard already under string tension from the long and transition bridges. The base of the bridge has three "feet" that are positioned over the ribs while the space between is able to vibrate freely. Once in position, I glued the contact points and fastened underneath.

I hope that makes sense!

Hello everyone,

This piano, a 5'1" Schomacker baby from 1911, has been in the works for a while. It'll leave my shop on Wednesday and go back to its owner. Peter Grey asked if I'd make a comparison recording of the same piano and same repertoire played to two different tunings. Admittedly, I tuned very fast today and a few unisons are subpar, but you'll get the idea. While there is some voicing left to do, I'll do it in the client's house to his taste.

ET samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Equal Temperament, sound samples

Modified Kirnberger III samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Modified Kirnberger III temperament, sound samples

I rebuilt the piano and kept the original soundboard. New WNG repetitions, shanks/flanges, Ronsen bacon hammers voiced with shellac, rescaled by JD Grandt, bass bridge modified (removed apron and shorted speaking length/increased back scale length), hybrid restringing with Paulello wire. I was surprised the client was willing to put this much into the piano, but he knew it wouldn't be worth what he put into it. It really is a gem, though.

Please let me know your thoughts on the tuning comparison. 

My point of view is that the purpose of the apron was to connect the bridge closer to the center of the soundboard. So removing the apron and attaching directly is a negative. The advantage gained is that the backscale has lengthened allowing more freedom of movement. So i do a modified conversion on the smaller grands. I keep the apron and move the bridge location closer towards the  center by sliding it forward on the apron and redesign the now shorter bass strings. This way i have increased the backscale and maintained the farthest position of the bridge location on the soundboard.

-chris

Hi Stewart,

Thank you! I changed the bass bridge for two reasons, 1. I attended a class that Del Fandrich taught where I was convinced the cantilever really doesn't help the tone, in many cases hurts it, 2. I started disassembling the piano and realized the apron was delaminating. I figured this warranted some experimentation!

I removed the apron and removed the cap with a table saw. I then flattened and glued/doweled a new base with maple from an old back action. After restringing the long bridge and short tenor bridge (yes, a three bridge baby!), I was able to set the bass bridge in its new (previously marked and prepared) location and set downbearing. Since it did not need to be fastened under the plate, I was able to remove material from the bottom with a jointer to arrive at my desired downbearing on the soundboard already under string tension from the long and transition bridges. The base of the bridge has three "feet" that are positioned over the ribs while the space between is able to vibrate freely. Once in position, I glued the contact points and fastened underneath.

I hope that makes sense!

Hello everyone,

This piano, a 5'1" Schomacker baby from 1911, has been in the works for a while. It'll leave my shop on Wednesday and go back to its owner. Peter Grey asked if I'd make a comparison recording of the same piano and same repertoire played to two different tunings. Admittedly, I tuned very fast today and a few unisons are subpar, but you'll get the idea. While there is some voicing left to do, I'll do it in the client's house to his taste.

ET samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Equal Temperament, sound samples

Modified Kirnberger III samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Modified Kirnberger III temperament, sound samples

I rebuilt the piano and kept the original soundboard. New WNG repetitions, shanks/flanges, Ronsen bacon hammers voiced with shellac, rescaled by JD Grandt, bass bridge modified (removed apron and shorted speaking length/increased back scale length), hybrid restringing with Paulello wire. I was surprised the client was willing to put this much into the piano, but he knew it wouldn't be worth what he put into it. It really is a gem, though.

Please let me know your thoughts on the tuning comparison. 

I've heard Del say things similar to what Chris wrote above...that it's the length of the back scale that really counts, enough to sacrifice speaking length. 

------------------------------
Anthony Willey, RPT
http://willeypianotuning.com
http://pianometer.com

Original Message:
Sent: 10-21-2025 13:31
From: Chris Chernobieff
Subject: Recordings from same piano, different tuning

My point of view is that the purpose of the apron was to connect the bridge closer to the center of the soundboard. So removing the apron and attaching directly is a negative. The advantage gained is that the backscale has lengthened allowing more freedom of movement. So i do a modified conversion on the smaller grands. I keep the apron and move the bridge location closer towards the  center by sliding it forward on the apron and redesign the now shorter bass strings. This way i have increased the backscale and maintained the farthest position of the bridge location on the soundboard.

-chris

------------------------------
On the page, it looked....nothing.
The beginning, simple, almost comic.
Just a pulse - bassoons, basset horns, like a rusty squeezebox. And then suddenly, high above it..an oboe, hanging there unwavering, until a clarinet sweetened it into a phrase of such delight.
This was no composition by a performing monkey!!

865-986-7720 (text only please)

Original Message:
Sent: 10-21-2025 13:20
From: Tim Foster
Subject: Recordings from same piano, different tuning

Hi Stewart,

Thank you! I changed the bass bridge for two reasons, 1. I attended a class that Del Fandrich taught where I was convinced the cantilever really doesn't help the tone, in many cases hurts it, 2. I started disassembling the piano and realized the apron was delaminating. I figured this warranted some experimentation!

I removed the apron and removed the cap with a table saw. I then flattened and glued/doweled a new base with maple from an old back action. After restringing the long bridge and short tenor bridge (yes, a three bridge baby!), I was able to set the bass bridge in its new (previously marked and prepared) location and set downbearing. Since it did not need to be fastened under the plate, I was able to remove material from the bottom with a jointer to arrive at my desired downbearing on the soundboard already under string tension from the long and transition bridges. The base of the bridge has three "feet" that are positioned over the ribs while the space between is able to vibrate freely. Once in position, I glued the contact points and fastened underneath.

I hope that makes sense!

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 10-21-2025 08:46
From: Stewart Freedman
Subject: Recordings from same piano, different tuning

Nice work, Tim,
I'm curious why and how you modified the bass bridge? Maybe you covered this in an earlier post.

Some of these "no name" pianos deserve a new life. How fortunate for you and your client that the value of this instrument has been preserved. Well done.
Stewart
Sent from my iPad


Original Message:
Sent: 10/20/2025 8:49:00 PM
From: Tim Foster
Subject: Recordings from same piano, different tuning

Hello everyone,

This piano, a 5'1" Schomacker baby from 1911, has been in the works for a while. It'll leave my shop on Wednesday and go back to its owner. Peter Grey asked if I'd make a comparison recording of the same piano and same repertoire played to two different tunings. Admittedly, I tuned very fast today and a few unisons are subpar, but you'll get the idea. While there is some voicing left to do, I'll do it in the client's house to his taste.

ET samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Equal Temperament, sound samples

Modified Kirnberger III samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Modified Kirnberger III temperament, sound samples

I rebuilt the piano and kept the original soundboard. New WNG repetitions, shanks/flanges, Ronsen bacon hammers voiced with shellac, rescaled by JD Grandt, bass bridge modified (removed apron and shorted speaking length/increased back scale length), hybrid restringing with Paulello wire. I was surprised the client was willing to put this much into the piano, but he knew it wouldn't be worth what he put into it. It really is a gem, though.

Please let me know your thoughts on the tuning comparison. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074
------------------------------

Tim,

Sorry it has taken me so long to weigh-in here. Just busy...and I wanted to listen repeatedly to the differences here to hopefully make sure of what I'm saying. 

So...while (oddly enough) the difference between the two is less than I would have expected, what I'm really hearing (I think) is a more "complex" overall sound in the K3 than in the ET. I hear it especially in the Claire de Lune (which is my all time favorite piece of music anyway). It has a slightly "sharper" tonality to it, almost edgy but not quite, but there is a bit of "shimmer" in it that is not there in the ET. BOTH are good, but there is something extra in the K3. I also THINK that I noticed you pedaling it differently in K3 vs ET, specifically I think you pedaled less in the K3 than in ET, therefore it was a somewhat cleaner sound. Again, both good, but somehow more "interesting" in the UT...at least to my ears. 

And...this piano simply sounds way better than it has a right to for being such a small instrument. Kudos to you, your mods and workmanship! From bass to treble it really sings! 👍 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 10-22-2025 00:40
From: Anthony Willey
Subject: Recordings from same piano, different tuning

I've heard Del say things similar to what Chris wrote above...that it's the length of the back scale that really counts, enough to sacrifice speaking length. 

------------------------------
Anthony Willey, RPT
http://willeypianotuning.com
http://pianometer.com

Original Message:
Sent: 10-21-2025 13:31
From: Chris Chernobieff
Subject: Recordings from same piano, different tuning

My point of view is that the purpose of the apron was to connect the bridge closer to the center of the soundboard. So removing the apron and attaching directly is a negative. The advantage gained is that the backscale has lengthened allowing more freedom of movement. So i do a modified conversion on the smaller grands. I keep the apron and move the bridge location closer towards the  center by sliding it forward on the apron and redesign the now shorter bass strings. This way i have increased the backscale and maintained the farthest position of the bridge location on the soundboard.

-chris

------------------------------
On the page, it looked....nothing.
The beginning, simple, almost comic.
Just a pulse - bassoons, basset horns, like a rusty squeezebox. And then suddenly, high above it..an oboe, hanging there unwavering, until a clarinet sweetened it into a phrase of such delight.
This was no composition by a performing monkey!!

865-986-7720 (text only please)

Original Message:
Sent: 10-21-2025 13:20
From: Tim Foster
Subject: Recordings from same piano, different tuning

Hi Stewart,

Thank you! I changed the bass bridge for two reasons, 1. I attended a class that Del Fandrich taught where I was convinced the cantilever really doesn't help the tone, in many cases hurts it, 2. I started disassembling the piano and realized the apron was delaminating. I figured this warranted some experimentation!

I removed the apron and removed the cap with a table saw. I then flattened and glued/doweled a new base with maple from an old back action. After restringing the long bridge and short tenor bridge (yes, a three bridge baby!), I was able to set the bass bridge in its new (previously marked and prepared) location and set downbearing. Since it did not need to be fastened under the plate, I was able to remove material from the bottom with a jointer to arrive at my desired downbearing on the soundboard already under string tension from the long and transition bridges. The base of the bridge has three "feet" that are positioned over the ribs while the space between is able to vibrate freely. Once in position, I glued the contact points and fastened underneath.

I hope that makes sense!

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 10-21-2025 08:46
From: Stewart Freedman
Subject: Recordings from same piano, different tuning

Nice work, Tim,
I'm curious why and how you modified the bass bridge? Maybe you covered this in an earlier post.

Some of these "no name" pianos deserve a new life. How fortunate for you and your client that the value of this instrument has been preserved. Well done.
Stewart
Sent from my iPad


Original Message:
Sent: 10/20/2025 8:49:00 PM
From: Tim Foster
Subject: Recordings from same piano, different tuning

Hello everyone,

This piano, a 5'1" Schomacker baby from 1911, has been in the works for a while. It'll leave my shop on Wednesday and go back to its owner. Peter Grey asked if I'd make a comparison recording of the same piano and same repertoire played to two different tunings. Admittedly, I tuned very fast today and a few unisons are subpar, but you'll get the idea. While there is some voicing left to do, I'll do it in the client's house to his taste.

ET samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Equal Temperament, sound samples

Modified Kirnberger III samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Modified Kirnberger III temperament, sound samples

I rebuilt the piano and kept the original soundboard. New WNG repetitions, shanks/flanges, Ronsen bacon hammers voiced with shellac, rescaled by JD Grandt, bass bridge modified (removed apron and shorted speaking length/increased back scale length), hybrid restringing with Paulello wire. I was surprised the client was willing to put this much into the piano, but he knew it wouldn't be worth what he put into it. It really is a gem, though.

Please let me know your thoughts on the tuning comparison. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074
------------------------------

Thank you for your feedback, Peter! The first thing I noticed when I started tuning this way was that the pedaling felt different. I don't think I was pedaling Claire de Lune very differently in both tunings, but honestly I'm not very cognizant of how I pedal most of the time- it's just an extension of me trying to create the sound I'm after. In all likelihood, I pedaled more/longer in K3 because the clarity is far greater. 

Additionally, voicing this piano to be mellow, the widest thirds are much less glaring, especially in quieter lyrical pieces like I recorded. Increasing volume can increase the vibrancy of these intervals in a wonderful way. 

And thank you for your advice about hammer voicing with shellac, I think it was a good fit for this piano!

Tim,

Sorry it has taken me so long to weigh-in here. Just busy...and I wanted to listen repeatedly to the differences here to hopefully make sure of what I'm saying. 

So...while (oddly enough) the difference between the two is less than I would have expected, what I'm really hearing (I think) is a more "complex" overall sound in the K3 than in the ET. I hear it especially in the Claire de Lune (which is my all time favorite piece of music anyway). It has a slightly "sharper" tonality to it, almost edgy but not quite, but there is a bit of "shimmer" in it that is not there in the ET. BOTH are good, but there is something extra in the K3. I also THINK that I noticed you pedaling it differently in K3 vs ET, specifically I think you pedaled less in the K3 than in ET, therefore it was a somewhat cleaner sound. Again, both good, but somehow more "interesting" in the UT...at least to my ears. 

And...this piano simply sounds way better than it has a right to for being such a small instrument. Kudos to you, your mods and workmanship! From bass to treble it really sings! 👍 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 10-22-2025 00:40
From: Anthony Willey
Subject: Recordings from same piano, different tuning

I've heard Del say things similar to what Chris wrote above...that it's the length of the back scale that really counts, enough to sacrifice speaking length. 

------------------------------
Anthony Willey, RPT
http://willeypianotuning.com
http://pianometer.com

Original Message:
Sent: 10-21-2025 13:31
From: Chris Chernobieff
Subject: Recordings from same piano, different tuning

My point of view is that the purpose of the apron was to connect the bridge closer to the center of the soundboard. So removing the apron and attaching directly is a negative. The advantage gained is that the backscale has lengthened allowing more freedom of movement. So i do a modified conversion on the smaller grands. I keep the apron and move the bridge location closer towards the  center by sliding it forward on the apron and redesign the now shorter bass strings. This way i have increased the backscale and maintained the farthest position of the bridge location on the soundboard.

-chris

------------------------------
On the page, it looked....nothing.
The beginning, simple, almost comic.
Just a pulse - bassoons, basset horns, like a rusty squeezebox. And then suddenly, high above it..an oboe, hanging there unwavering, until a clarinet sweetened it into a phrase of such delight.
This was no composition by a performing monkey!!

865-986-7720 (text only please)

Original Message:
Sent: 10-21-2025 13:20
From: Tim Foster
Subject: Recordings from same piano, different tuning

Hi Stewart,

Thank you! I changed the bass bridge for two reasons, 1. I attended a class that Del Fandrich taught where I was convinced the cantilever really doesn't help the tone, in many cases hurts it, 2. I started disassembling the piano and realized the apron was delaminating. I figured this warranted some experimentation!

I removed the apron and removed the cap with a table saw. I then flattened and glued/doweled a new base with maple from an old back action. After restringing the long bridge and short tenor bridge (yes, a three bridge baby!), I was able to set the bass bridge in its new (previously marked and prepared) location and set downbearing. Since it did not need to be fastened under the plate, I was able to remove material from the bottom with a jointer to arrive at my desired downbearing on the soundboard already under string tension from the long and transition bridges. The base of the bridge has three "feet" that are positioned over the ribs while the space between is able to vibrate freely. Once in position, I glued the contact points and fastened underneath.

I hope that makes sense!

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 10-21-2025 08:46
From: Stewart Freedman
Subject: Recordings from same piano, different tuning

Nice work, Tim,
I'm curious why and how you modified the bass bridge? Maybe you covered this in an earlier post.

Some of these "no name" pianos deserve a new life. How fortunate for you and your client that the value of this instrument has been preserved. Well done.
Stewart
Sent from my iPad


Original Message:
Sent: 10/20/2025 8:49:00 PM
From: Tim Foster
Subject: Recordings from same piano, different tuning

Hello everyone,

This piano, a 5'1" Schomacker baby from 1911, has been in the works for a while. It'll leave my shop on Wednesday and go back to its owner. Peter Grey asked if I'd make a comparison recording of the same piano and same repertoire played to two different tunings. Admittedly, I tuned very fast today and a few unisons are subpar, but you'll get the idea. While there is some voicing left to do, I'll do it in the client's house to his taste.

ET samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Equal Temperament, sound samples

Modified Kirnberger III samples:

Rebuilt Schomacker, Modified Kirnberger III temperament, sound samples

I rebuilt the piano and kept the original soundboard. New WNG repetitions, shanks/flanges, Ronsen bacon hammers voiced with shellac, rescaled by JD Grandt, bass bridge modified (removed apron and shorted speaking length/increased back scale length), hybrid restringing with Paulello wire. I was surprised the client was willing to put this much into the piano, but he knew it wouldn't be worth what he put into it. It really is a gem, though.

Please let me know your thoughts on the tuning comparison. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074
------------------------------