Sorry if the topic of this topic seems a little "purist", but I am curious to know why the model Steinway D is not a match as the other models are, "Steingraeber E 272", "Ant. Petrof 275", "C. Bechstein D 282", Blüthner one (280), Steinway B (211), Grotrian (277).
All correspond to the size of the original, except the Steinway D 274, which in Pianoteq measures "270".
(???)
Maybe the 270 measure was viewed as a way for developers to compensate for a lack of both chamber and parlor offerings. To some size does matter! It might when you want to drown out a concert soloist in a combo, in an ensemble, or in a philharmonic orchestra.
If you've a flautist or a saxophonist soloing on a piccolo or soprano sax, a truly grandiose piano could make the woodwind performance appear insignificant —visually, audibly, and economically.
Bigger pianos obviously are prestigious! (The D model version and the C. Bechstein 1896 were possibly the first two {2} representations of real world pianos you can associate with an identifiable brand name inside Pianoteq.)
Both versions originally were only early software general purpose pianos, with the Bechstein having a 2.1 meter (software) String Length the smaller of the two.
Personally, I just feel the loudness war wages on in Pianoteq according to Modartt and America is losing it without a Pianoteq American grand (such as a Baldwin SF-10 Artist Grand) to defend her honor.
I feel sadly it is as though everyone who just now buys into Pianoteq, potentially, is seen as a possible future member or yet a draftee that is to battle for his chair and only join the ranks of the Berliner Philharmoniker (with a Steingraeber) or some other large orchestra (with another humongous piano), whether he likes it or not.
There are (depending on how your count them) four Steinway D scalings going back to 1876 (but I know Steinway designed and made concert grands before this time--including a 1859 overstrung scaling visible in Chapter 1 of Alfred Dolge's "Pianos and their makers"). The original scaling (if my sources are correct) debuted at the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia, the first World's Fair in the USA which commemorated the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
This first design, which was usually called the Steinway 4 or Steinway Concert Grand in their marketing literature was 270cm. In 1878 all models were redesigned and rebranded, so the Steinway 4 became the D, the Steinway 3 became the C, etc. In the main, these scalings changed very little with the 1878 rename, but minor improvements outside of the original design were constantly being incorporated into Steinway's pianos during these years. Until 1884, all Model Ds were 270cm, and usually listed by contemporary salespeople as "Centennial D-270s" which are extremely rare--less than 500 remaining examples of the D at this size. Of all of these pre-1884 instruments, none are really identical in design, unlike the future "D" models which are quite consistent. Also, it is not clear if most or all of the pre-1884 instruments were 85-key instead of 88-key. Some sources say nothing was 88-key until 1884, but other sources disagree, which makes me cautious of anyone who lists an antique Steinway with 88-keys and says it pre-dates 1884 or even predates the 1876 Exhibition, but I really can't say on any such cases without consulting Steinway's archives. I also know these are the American dates, I'm not sure how much delay between design innovations being made in Hamburg (after 1880) and New York there might have been.
In 1884, after a total redesign of the D (including the addition of the capo d'astro bar and lots of internal scale changes), the new rim was 272cm, which was the rim size until at least 1896, but the rim change doesn't appear to change the internal string length just the width of the rim. I'm not sure when exactly Steinway went in their marketing literature from this new 1884 "D" to the current "D-274" but there aren't many other changes to the instrument--as far as patents go--since then (Patent #1826848 for a faster repeating action, Patent #2051633 for a more resonant soundboard, and Patent #3091149 for a tighter pinblock). I'm not sure, since I don't have a copy of Kehl and Kirkland's "The Official Guide to Steinway Pianos" which could have more detail than I can easily find in my sources. It's strange as a lot more documentation exists online and in my source books on the different iterations and scalings of the A, B, and C than there seems to be on the might "D" itself. I'm rather disappointed that Cyril Ehrlich only talks about square pianos and Steinway's marketing rather than their 19th century grands, and David Rowland only mentions Rubinstein's America tour for Steinway in 1872-1873, which I doubt was on a square piano, instead focusing on overall sales of American pianos in the European market and he doesn't even discuss 85 vs 88 key range (which is unusual considering his thorough documentation of historical piano compass from 1750-1850).
To the question of why 270 instead of 274, my guess is that either PTQ left it the older string/case length to prevent licensing problems with the fact that only with PTQ 5, did Steinway authorize their marque to be used in PTQ and the D4 became the "Steinway D" and this is an artifact that time in PTQ development. Or, case size and string length doesn't necessarily overlap as easily as we presume that they do: e.g. since strings sit at a slight angle in most pianos for overstrining, they may be noticeably different in length when compared to the case. I can't easily measure this on multiple pianos, but it's possible that--especially as the 270 to 272 transition was only an increase in rim size not string length--the change from 272 to 274 was more cosmetic than structural as far as string placement, length, or density and 270 is better representative of the D than the rim measurement. It's further possible that the string composition (material and gauge which sadly we can't change yet) mean that a more authentic tone is created by the PTQ engine at 270 default length than it is at 274 length, since sound quality should overrule arbitrary specs.
While it's possible that this is to create more of a parlor feeling in tone, I suspect PTQ would have just modeled a C-227 semi-concert grand (which was Steinway's original parlor offering) instead to achieve that (especially as they're still readily in production to fill the gap between the D and B).
Only Philippe or another Modartt designer could tell us the exact reason.
Link to Dolge for the 1859 illustration: https://archive.org/details/pianostheir...2/mode/2up
For now, thank you both. Amen Ptah Ra and tmyoung for the excellent explanation. A true lesson in Pianology and History. You give value and purpose to this Forum.
tmyoung - amazingly good job!
I have the Kehl and Kirkland book "The Official Guide to Steinway PIanos."
If I understand correctly, the 274 cm "D" premiered in 1965. The book lists the 8'10" (270 cm) "D" up until 1914, then an 8'11-1/4" (272 cm) "D" through 1965, and an 8'11-3/4" (274 cm) "D" since 1965. On my brief look through that section of the book tonight, I could not see that there is a reason given for the changes in length.
Thank you, David. You saved me a long trip to the library!
Also, in what little research I can find on the history of rim thickness, my guess is that the rim redesigns in the 1880s and 1960s were to increase the impedance of the case and give more resonance to the instrument. Generally--with the exception of resonating cases from Boesendorfer (I think) and maybe Schimmel--the thicker the rim, the more that sound is sent back towards the soundboard and harp, increasing volume and tone. I know Fandrich's Young-Chang pianos have isolated rims to increase this even further.
I checked on Steinway's American website and they had the following detail on the current "D" under Strings:
"Longest: Agraffe/bridge: 79¼" (201 cm)"
I (unscientifically) measured a Steinway D through a perpendicular photo of one, and I found that the pin-to-end length of the strings was 229cm, the aggrafe-center-to-first-bridge-pin was 205cm, and the copper winding (which starts slightly after the agraffe and ends slightly before the bridge pin) was 201cm. I haven't found any discussion that debates whether or not the speaking length of a bass string is only what's wound or--like treble strings--consists exactly of what's between the agraffe center and the first bridge pin. It could also be that my measurements are off, anyone willing to stuff a $25 Stanley Fatmax in their Model D in the name of science?
The Model B listing on Steinway's American site also shows a max string length that differs considerably from the case size (151cm speaking length vs a 221cm case length). This is yet another moment where Del Fandrich's knowledge would be a huge help! I don't know that there's really anyone in the world who understands string tension within a piano like he does!
The difference between string length and case length leads to three interesting possibilities... (Philippe where are you to settle the debate?)
1. PTQ has an exact scaling built into the engine that lists each string by exact speaking length and the "String Length" slider is interpreted by the software as a percentage that all strings are adjusted against (so setting it to 274 will make all strings 1.5% longer). It's interested that in PTQ Pro, the note edit window doesn't show different string lengths on each note which reinforces the implication that the String Length slider is relative not fixed--even though it shows a fixed value in the Standard interface.
2. String Length is actually a relative inharmonicity slider which counterbalances the Octave Stretching slider.
3. String Length in the PTQ engine doesn't change the sound as much as we'd like to believe. Perhaps we are hearing a small change but believing the change is more significant because we assume it should be.
This raises another interesting question, how can end-users best emulate doubly and triply wound strings in PTQ Pro? Some Baldwins and other makers--though I can't find my source for this at the moment--have triple wound copper strings on the lowest 3-5 strings (I think, I need to double check exactly how many) which I would assume would be best emulated by decreasing the string length on those notes in the note editor to add inharmonicity from the extra weight and then increase their volume in the note editor. Would that be the wisest way of doing that in the current engine?
https://photos.app.goo.gl/MMFerZQNBtjsEYZYA
tmyoung -
Here are some photos of the history pages showing notes on the Centennial Grand that progressed into the Model D's, and the Monitor Grand that progressed into the Model B's.
I hope that they help you out!
David
https://photos.app.goo.gl/MMFerZQNBtjsEYZYA
tmyoung -
Here are some photos of the history pages showing notes on the Centennial Grand that progressed into the Model D's, and the Monitor Grand that progressed into the Model B's.
I hope that they help you out!
David
Fascinating! Thank you for the interesting read: none of my sources go into this depth, and it clarifies quite a few inconsistencies. I'll post more tomorrow after I've had a better chance to look all of this wealth of information over.