Design and tone in the mechanoacoustic piano. Part II.

Piano structure
Harold A. Conklin

Citation: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100, 695 (1996); doi: 10.1121/1.416233
View online: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.416233
View Table of Contents: http://asa.scitation.org/toc/jas/100/2
Published by the Acoustical Society of America

Articles you may be interested in

Design and tone in the mechanoacoustic piano. Part I. Piano hammers and tonal effects
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99, 3286 (1996); 10.1121/1.414947

Design and tone in the mechanoacoustic piano. Part III. Piano strings and scale design
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100, 1286 (1996); 10.1121/1.416017

Piano design factors—Their influence on tone and acoustical performance

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 81, S60 (1987); 10.1121/1.2024314

Modeling and simulation of a grand piano

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134, 648 (2013); 10.1121/1.4809649

Coupled piano strings

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 62, 1474 (1977); 10.1121/1.381677

Vibration and sound radiation of a piano soundboard

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 80, 1573 (1986); 10.1121/1.394321
Design and tone in the mechanoacoustic piano. Part II.
Piano structurea)
Harold A. Conklin, Jr.
P.O. Box 1915, Dunedin, Florida 34697
~Received 1 December 1990; accepted for publication 30 April 1992!
Editorial note: This invited and tutorial article is being published in three parts. The abstract for the
series was published in Part I—Piano hammers and tonal effects @J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99, 3286–
3296 ~1996!#.
PACS numbers: 43.10.Ln, 43.75.Mn @DWM#
I. SOUNDBOARDS
The original soundboard of the 1720 Cristofori piano,
3.5 mm thick, is believed to have been made of cypress
wood.58 Soundboards for major contemporary U.S. pianos
normally range between 6–10 mm in thickness, and are as-
sembled from quarter-sawn59 5- to 15-cm-wide strips of a
solid softwood such as Sitka spruce ~Picea sitchensis! or red
spruce ~Picea rubens!. Selected material of good quality
typically has a density ~after drying! a little above 0.4 g/cm3,
and, in the direction of the grain, a dynamic elastic modulus
around 12–13 GPa and an internal damping equivalent to a
Q of around 200. Several such strips, initially around 13 mm
thick, are glued together edge-to-edge in order to make a
panel as wide as required. Individual strips are limited in
width by the diameter of available trees, but can be as long
as needed, usually between 2 and 3 m for the largest instru-
ments. Panels are planed to the required thickness after glu-
ing. References 60–64 give the results of some studies of
soundboard wood. Reference 61 is the most detailed.
In a direction at 90 deg to the grain, the strength, the
Young’s modulus, and the Q of spruce are highly variable
from tree to tree and have values much smaller than in the
grain direction. Table II compares the Young’s modulus,
density, and Q, measured both with and across the grain, for
some quarter-sawn samples of Sitka spruce. ~The ‘‘grain
angle’’ in the table is the angle of the annual rings with
respect to the flat surface; this would be 90 deg for perfectly
quarter-sawn material. Commercial suppliers prefer to con-
sider wood to be quarter-sawn if the angle is 45 deg or
greater.! Because of the inferior cross-grain properties it is
usual and desirable, both acoustically and mechanically, for
piano soundboards to be stiffened and strengthened with ribs.
The ribs, also normally of softwood, are oriented at 90 deg or
nearly 90 deg to the grain of the soundboard strips, and in
grand pianos they are glued onto the bottom ~in upright pi-
anos, the back! of the soundboard. The cross-grain stiffness
of a ribbed solid-wood soundboard comes predominantly
from the ribs. For that reason the characteristics of a piano
soundboard are relatively independent of variations in the
cross-grain properties of the strips themselves. To a first ap-
proximation, the ribs normally supply enough stiffness to
a!
Figure numbers, table numbers, and reference numbers are continued con-
secutively from Part I.
695 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100 (2), Pt. 1, August 1996 0001-4966/96/100(2)/695/14/$6.00
make the cross-grain propagation characteristics of the
soundboard similar to those in the direction of the grain. This
is not to say that the best ribbed soundboards behave as
isotropic plates; if that were true, the grain direction of the
soundboard relative to the piano case or rim on which it is
mounted would not matter. The performance of a sound-
board does depend on the orientation of the grain and the ribs
in relation to the case, as well as in relation to the sound-
board bridges; differences in tone quality and in the balance
of treble versus bass occur as this orientation is varied. The
soundboard grain usually runs diagonally with respect to the
case and generally parallel to the average direction of the
long ~treble! bridge. In grand pianos the grain normally
forms an angle of 30–50 deg with the bass ~straight! side of
the case. Well-designed soundboards of the type being de-
scribed certainly perform better with ribs than without them.
If an un-ribbed solid spruce soundboard were to be installed
in a piano, the instrument would probably have less than
normal output, especially at low frequencies; and the sound-
board probably would soon split due to stresses caused by
variations in ambient relative humidity and temperature.
Those predictions are based upon the author’s experiment in
which a small grand piano was constructed exactly the same
as a standard model except for having no ribs on its solid
spruce soundboard. A lack of bass output was an immediate
result; splitting followed during a dry period several months
later.
According to Marcuse, laminated wood was used for
soundboards as early as 1771.65 Recently, laminated ~ply-
wood! soundboard panels are commonly used by modern
makers. Well-made laminated soundboards can be almost in-
distinguishable in appearance from solid wood soundboards.
Thin outer facings of spruce or a similar-appearing wood
may be used to cover an inner core of a different wood. The
grain of the inner plies is oriented differently from that of the
outer plies. Consequently laminated panels tend to be stron-
ger ‘‘across the grain,’’ less susceptible to splitting, and
therefore easier to handle in production than un-ribbed solid
wood panels. ~Solid wood soundboards do not normally split
provided the wood has been properly conditioned to the cor-
rect moisture content before the ribs are glued on. Small
splits do not necessarily affect the tone of a piano, but do
indicate that there has been a period of inadequate environ-
mental control.! Soundboards made from selected solid
woods such as Sitka spruce have advantages of low weight
© 1996 Acoustical Society of America 695
TABLE II. Physical properties of representative samples of ‘‘quarter sawn’’ Sitka spruce at approx. 6% EMC. Samples were from a population of over 100
pieces of approx. initial size 125.739.6834.60 cm. Densities in the original population ranged from 0.343 to 0.501 g/cm3, and elastic moduli in the grain
direction from 7.9 to 17 GPa. The number of annual rings per cm ranged between 3.1 and 15.7. Q values in the grain direction ranged from 160 to 257. The
samples are listed in the order of increasing density.

Grain Annual Longitudinal Cross-grain

Density angle rings Mod. (E L ) Mod. (E c )
Sample ~g/cm3! ~deg! ~per cm! ~GPa! ~GPa! E L /E c QL Qc Q L /Q c E L /density

1 0.374 53 5.9 11.1 0.139 79.9 185 68.6 2.70 29.7

2 0.382 51 6.3 11.0 0.137 80.3 183 67.3 2.72 28.8
3 0.390 77 6.3 12.5 0.545 22.9 232 83.2 2.79 32.1
4 0.400 53 13.8 12.5 0.167 74.9 190 72.8 2.61 31.3
5 0.415 52 5.5 12.5 0.132 94.7 186 58.9 3.16 30.1
6 0.419 88 4.3 9.1 0.135 67.4 159 91.2 1.74 21.7
7 0.419 52 4.3 14.3 0.138 103.6 199 68.0 2.93 34.1
8 0.423 59 8.3 10.6 0.194 54.6 191 76.2 2.51 25.1
9 0.426 63 7.5 13.0 0.196 66.3 188 66.9 2.80 30.5
10 0.428 77 3.5 14.3 0.429 33.3 189 70.5 2.68 33.4
11 0.429 80 11.8 13.2 0.938 14.1 208 75.1 2.77 30.7
12 0.443 58 4.7 12.5 0.266 47.0 179 72.1 2.48 28.2
13 0.449 60 7.9 13.0 0.269 48.3 190 67.7 2.81 29.0
14 0.454 49 7.9 14.8 0.199 74.4 212 74.6 2.84 32.6

Average 0.418 62 7.0 12.46 0.277 61.5 192 72.4 2.68 29.8

and high stiffness-to-weight ratio that are normally less evi-
dent with laminated construction. The author’s impression is
that some pianos made with laminated soundboards have
lower acoustical efficiency and less satisfactory bass re-
sponse than those with solid wood soundboards. Current
U.S. practice is to offer laminated soundboards in pianos of
lower cost.
Figure 19 shows Chladni patterns obtained for several
modes of the soundboard of a 2.74-m ~9 ft! grand piano
when installed in its wooden rim. The soundboard, 7 to 9
mm thick, was of solid spruce and had 17 ribs of varying
cross section ~up to about 2.5 cm32.5 cm! that were spaced
between 10 and 15 cm apart. The dark object to the left in
the photos is a vibration generator used to drive the sound-
board. Approximate modal frequencies are noted below the
photos. At frequencies below the first mode, usually around
60–70 Hz in a fully assembled piano of this type, the acous-
tical output falls off rapidly. Very little energy is radiated at
the fundamental frequencies of the lowest-pitched piano
tones. Until recently the Chladni method was the only prac-
tical one for investigating the vibrational behavior of piano
soundboards. Now sophisticated and powerful modal analy-
sis techniques are available that provide quite complete
modal data as well as animated displays of soundboard
motion.66–68 However, to demonstrate what is happening at
relatively low frequencies there is nothing handier than a big
shaker and a little sand.
Rossing69 and Suzuki70 have observed that at some fre-
quencies in the kHz range there may be less soundboard
motion at the ribs than between the ribs. Transverse ribs
spaced at approximately equal intervals along an isolated
soundboard strip cause the strip to behave as a periodic
structure71 for transverse vibrations propagating lengthwise
on the strip. Ribs of conventional size and spacing can pro-
duce a frequency-dependent attenuation at medium audio
frequencies. In theory the frequency of the first minimum
due to such periodicity can be raised above the audio range
by reducing the spacing of the ribs and increasing their num-
ber while at the same time making them narrower. A large
grand piano having more than twice the usual number of
soundboard ribs72 has been found by the author to perform
well.
The load presented to the strings of a piano is a complex
mechanical impedance, variable with frequency, whose val-
ues in all three directions significantly affect the tone of the
instrument. The character of the load depends on the struc-
ture of the soundboard and its mounting, the properties of the
bridges on which the speaking lengths of the strings termi-
nate, the location of these bridges on the soundboard, the
presence of the strings themselves, and a rather large number
of other factors. Impedance measurements made at the ter-
minating points of the speaking lengths of the strings, like
measurements at the nodes of an electrical circuit, can indi-
cate system operating conditions and often can be helpful in
diagnosing troubles. The author finds it convenient to look at
mobility, which is the complex quantity VELOCITY/
FORCE, the reciprocal of mechanical impedance. An in-
crease of mobility normally corresponds to an increase in the
acoustical output ~or the losses! of the piano.
Figures 20–28 show relative mobility ~magnitude only!
under various conditions at two locations on the bridges of a
2.74 m ~9 ft! grand piano. All of the curves have the same
0-dB reference level. Figure 20 shows mobility in the range
0–200 Hz at the treble end of the bass bridge, near the speak-
ing length termination for the strings of key 20 ~F2!. The
direction of the measurement was normal to the plane of the
soundboard. The strings and string plate were removed but
the soundboard bridges were in place. The large peak at 48
Hz corresponds to the first mode, for which all points on the
soundboard moved in phase. The second mode is visible at
about 70 Hz. Other prominent modes can be seen at 100 and
131 Hz. Modes that have nodal lines at the measurement
point will not appear. Figure 21 shows mobility at the same
point with the instrument fully assembled and tuned. A com-

696 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 100, No. 2, Pt. 1, August 1996 Harold A. Conklin, Jr.: Piano structure 696
FIG. 19. Chladni figures on the soundboard of a 2.74 m ~9 ft! grand piano. ~a! mode 1 ~49 Hz!; ~b! mode 2 ~66.7 Hz!; ~c! mode 3 ~89.4 Hz!; ~d! mode 4 ~112.8
Hz!; ~e! ~184 Hz!; ~f! ~306 Hz!.
parison of Figs. 20 and 21 shows that the strings affected
greatly the motion of the soundboard: The frequency of the
first mode increased from 48 to about 60 Hz, and its peak
value fell about 15 dB. Mobility without the strings ranged
over about 40 dB between 30 and 200 Hz. With the strings in
place, the range of variation decreased to about 20 dB and
the curve appears much smoother. The phase curves ~not
shown to allow maximum clarity of the magnitude curves!
indicate that the vibrating system was stiffness controlled
697 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 100, No. 2, Pt. 1, August 1996
below the first mode. The rapid decrease in mobility at fre-
quencies below the first mode corresponds to the decrease in
acoustical output already mentioned but is not solely respon-
sible for this, because the relatively un-baffled, dipole nature
of the soundboard as a radiator is also a factor. Figure 22
shows the mobility without the strings and plate, at the same
driving point, over the frequency range 0–3.2 kHz. Mobility
excursions above 1 kHz were only about 65 dB, much
smaller than at lower frequencies. Figure 23 shows the mo-
Harold A. Conklin, Jr.: Piano structure 697
FIG. 20. Mobility ~normal to soundboard! at terminating point for strings of
E2 ~key 20! of 2.74-m grand piano, strings and plate removed ~0–200 Hz!.
bility at the same point with the instrument fully strung and
tuned. It is evident that the strings changed the mobility
much less above 1 kHz than at lower frequencies. Figure 24
shows mobility at the same point, but longitudinally, in the
direction of the strings, with the instrument fully assembled
and tuned. The results show that the bridge and soundboard
will be quite sensitive to longitudinal string forces at higher
frequencies.
Figure 25 shows mobility on the treble bridge, without
the strings, in a direction normal to the soundboard, at the
termination for the strings of C6 ~key 64, f 51046.5 Hz!. The
magnitude of mobility at frequencies above 1 kHz, is seen to
be about 27565 dB. The phase curve ~not shown! indicates
that the vibrating system is predominantly mass controlled in
that range. The value of the phase angle also indicates how
readily the soundboard will accept energy from the strings.
Figure 26 shows mobility at the same point with the instru-
ment fully assembled. The author’s experience has verified
that there is a significant relation between the values mea-
sured for mobility and the quality of the tone of the piano. In
instruments having a generally pleasing tone, the average
level for mobility in the relatively flat upper portion of the
curve tends to fall within a certain range. Pianos having a
much greater mobility level tend to sound harsh and to have
less than normal duration of tone. Conversely, if the mobility
FIG. 21. Mobility ~normal to soundboard! at terminating point for strings of
E2 ~key 20! of 2.74-m grand piano, assembled and tuned ~0–200 Hz!.
698 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 100, No. 2, Pt. 1, August 1996
FIG. 22. Mobility ~normal to soundboard! at terminating point for strings of
E2 ~key 20! of 2.74-m grand piano, strings and plate removed ~0–3.2 kHz!.
level falls significantly lower, the tone may have greater than
normal duration but the output will seem subnormal.
Figures 27 ~no strings! and 28 ~fully assembled! show
longitudinal mobility ~mobility measured in the direction of
the strings! at the same point on the treble bridge as Figs. 25
and 26. Note that the average longitudinal mobility in the
high-frequency part of Fig. 27 is at least 10 dB greater than
the mobility normal to the soundboard in the same frequency
range. Mobility normal to the soundboard increased at low
frequencies, while longitudinal mobility decreased. The fig-
ures show that motion of the bridge, either normal to the
soundboard or in the direction of the strings, will be coupled
to the soundboard. Bridge motion normal to the soundboard
accounts for most of the energy in piano tones, but the re-
sponse of the soundboard to forces acting in directions es-
sentially parallel to its plane is not negligible.
Soundboard thickness varies and the soundboard of a
particular piano model may vary in thickness from point to
point.73 Soundboards often are tapered so as to be thinner
around the periphery and thicker near the center. Figure 29
shows the effect of tapering on the modal frequencies of a
strip of soundboard spruce, 6.5 cm wide and initially 9.2 mm
thick, glued at each end in the normal way to a grand piano
rim, leaving a free span of 0.965 m. After an initial measure-
ment of modal frequencies, the strip was tapered in thickness
FIG. 23. Mobility ~normal to soundboard! at terminating point for strings of
E2 ~key 20! of 2.74-m grand piano, assembled and tuned ~0–3.2 kHz!.
Harold A. Conklin, Jr.: Piano structure 698
FIG. 24. Mobility ~in direction of strings! at terminating point for strings of
E2 ~key 20! of 2.74-m grand piano, assembled and tuned ~0–6.4 kHz!.
to about 4.76 mm at each end. Tapering started 15.9 cm from
each end and was linear. Figure 29 shows the modal frequen-
cies before and after tapering. Note that the lower frequen-
cies were affected more than higher frequencies by tapering.
Table III gives the frequencies before and after tapering, and
the percentage of change, for the first 10 modes. Figure 30
shows the effect on modal frequencies of thickness tapering
around the periphery of an installed soundboard. Mobility
measurements were made ~at E2 on the bass bridge! at inter-
vals during the tapering process. The results are shown here
superimposed.
The tonal effect of peripheral soundboard tapering evi-
dently differs from that of an overall reduction of thickness,
which might be expected to reduce all modal frequencies by
an equal percentage. Making the soundboard selectively
thinner ~e.g., in the treble region! can have a beneficial local
effect on tone quality. Apparently it is related to changes in
the local impedance presented by the soundboard and
bridges to the strings. If the entire soundboard is made thin-
ner, an undesirable reduction of mid-scale output may occur.
An overall thinning of the soundboard and ribs generally
causes a global lowering of modal frequencies and a de-
crease in the wavelength of high-frequency vibrations on the
soundboard. There is also a lowering of efficiency and a
FIG. 25. Mobility ~normal to soundboard! at terminating point for strings of
C6 ~key 64! of 2.74-m grand piano, strings and plate removed ~0–3.2 kHz!.
699 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 100, No. 2, Pt. 1, August 1996
FIG. 26. Mobility ~normal to soundboard! at terminating point for strings of
C6 ~key 64! of 2.74-m grand piano, assembled and tuned ~0–3.2 kHz!.
decrease in subjective loudness, although the piano output at
the fundamental frequency of some bass tones near modal
peaks might increase. Increasing the soundboard thickness
has the opposite effect, but thickness increase is limited be-
cause an output increase is normally accompanied by a de-
crease in tonal duration.
II. SOUNDBOARD BRIDGES
‘‘Bridges’’ are raised elements that establish the loci of
vibration terminating points for the strings. ~‘‘Bridges’’ can
be on the string plate as well as on the soundboard.! The
soundboard of a contemporary piano has a curved treble
bridge between one and two meters long, and a bass bridge
that is considerably less than one meter long. The bass bridge
is made 2 to 3 cm taller than the treble bridge in order to
allow the bass strings to pass with clearance over the treble
bridge and strings. The speaking lengths of the lowest-
frequency strings, terminate on the bass bridge. In small pi-
anos the bass bridge may be a cantilevered type that allows
the longest possible speaking lengths but shifts the sound-
board driving point away from the excessively stiff outer
edge of the soundboard. The bridges and the soundboard
typically support a static component of string tension known
as ‘‘bearing’’ or ‘‘down bearing.’’ It is directed normal to
FIG. 27. Mobility ~in direction of strings! at terminating point for strings of
C6 ~key 64! of 2.74-m grand piano, strings and plate removed ~0–3.2 kHz!.
Harold A. Conklin, Jr.: Piano structure 699
 TABLE III. Modal frequencies of soundboard strip before and after taper-
ing, and percent change.

Mode No. Start f End f % change

1 53.125 40.625 223.5

2 146.87 118.75 219.1
3 287.50 253.12 212.0
4 468.75 406.25 213.3
5 690.62 603.12 212.7
6 956.25 856.25 210.5
7 1262.5 1143.7 29.4
8 1600.0 1446.7 29.6
9 1962.5 1787.5 28.9
10 2225.0 2050.0 27.9

FIG. 28. Mobility ~in direction of strings! at terminating point for strings of
C6 ~key 64! of 2.74-m grand piano, assembled and tuned ~0–3.2 kHz!.
the soundboard and usually has a value, set at the factory,
equal to 0.5%–3% of string tension force. Bearing can be
measured with a tool responsive to differences between the
angle of the strings as they approach and leave the bridge. To
support the bearing force, the soundboard, ribs, and bridges
are usually given a curvature or ‘‘crown,’’ of the order of 15-
to 50-m radius, varying with the manufacturer and method
used. The amount of soundboard curvature affects the bal-
ance between low- and high-frequency tone. Low-frequency
output is generally maximized when the amount of bearing is
sufficient to make the soundboard approximately flat. The
amount of bearing affects to a degree the rate of energy
transfer from the strings to the soundboard. Too much bear-
ing can cause poor tone, but pianos sometimes work best
when the soundboard, under load, is essentially flat. In any
case, the amount of crown and the amount of bearing vary
seasonally with the moisture content of the wood. It is not
unusual in the U.S. for bearing to change by 0.5% season-
ally. Soundboard bridges typically are made of a hardwood
~such as maple or beech! having a density of 0.6–0.8 g/cm,
and are fabricated from solid and/or laminated material. Soft-
woods are not suitable for piano bridges because their lower
density allows losses at the terminating points of the strings,
and because their strength is inadequate to withstand
the mechanical stresses around the metal ‘‘bridgepins’’
which form the string-terminating points. Treble bridges usu-
ally are 2.5 to 3.5 cm wide and extend 3 to 4 cm above the
surface of the soundboard. The treble bridge for a 2.74-m
grand piano will weigh around 2 kg, compared with a total
soundboard weight of 10–13 kg.
The design of the soundboard bridges affects profoundly
the tone of a piano. The bridges and soundboard together
determine the load presented to the strings. In coupling the
strings to the soundboard, the bridges function as impedance
transformers presenting a higher impedance to the strings
than would exist in the case of direct coupling. This has been
shown by measurements of mobility versus frequency taken
normal to a soundboard at several points along the bridges,
without the strings, and both with and without the bridges in
place. The results, when plotted, formed curves that were
generally parallel and similar in shape but quite different in
level, the curve corresponding to the bridgeless condition
having a significantly higher mobility level than the other. If
the strings were terminated directly on the soundboard, the
result would be a louder-than-normal but relatively unpleas-
ant tone of comparatively short duration. By adjusting the
design of the bridges, the designer of a piano can change the
loudness, the duration, and the quality of the tone, within a
certain range, in order to suit the intended use of the instru-
ment. As might be expected, the requirements for increased
loudness and those for greater tonal duration tend to be in

FIG. 30. Effect of progressive peripheral thickness tapering on modal fre-

FIG. 29. Effect of tapering on modal frequencies of a soundboard strip quencies of soundboard in a 2.74-m grand piano. Curves show the mobility
0.965 m long. Curves show Inertance ~acceleration/force! of the strip, before normal to the soundboard at the terminating point for strings of E2 ~key 20!,
and after thickness-tapering at each end ~0–800 Hz!. with strings and plate removed ~0–200 Hz!.

700 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 100, No. 2, Pt. 1, August 1996 Harold A. Conklin, Jr.: Piano structure 700
opposition. Pianos that may serve well in a small room may
be unsuitable in a concert hall or as a solo instrument with
orchestra. To produce an instrument having at the same time
a beautiful tone, excellent tonal duration, and superior loud-
ness, challenges the designer. The final result usually in-
volves some compromise. A European manufacturer at one
time produced a grand piano that had a large treble bridge on
the top of the soundboard and another large ‘‘treble’’ bridge
directly below the first one but on the bottom of the sound-
board. The second bridge acted as an additional load to fur-
ther increase the impedance seen by the strings. These instru-
ments had a pleasant and interesting tone with quite
remarkable duration, but spoke rather softly.
In addition to their functions as string terminators and
impedance transformers, sound board bridges permit the
soundboard to respond to forces acting in directions essen-
tially parallel to its plane. Pianos do respond tonally when a
string is excited ~as by sidewise plucking! so that its motion
is in a plane parallel to the soundboard. This response is
associated with a ‘‘secondary’’ decay rate, noted by
Weinreich74 and others, in which string energy is dissipated
less rapidly than for string motion in a plane normal to the
soundboard. Weinreich also noted that a radiating system
~‘‘antenna’’! of different character appeared to operate for
the secondary decay rate than for the primary one associated
with string motion normal to the soundboard. Other ex-
amples of string forces which act parallel to the soundboard
are those generated by longitudinal string modes ~discussed
later! which have been shown to be tonally significant.
Bridge motion in response to such forces might be viewed as
rotational about an axis along its base. If the base of a bridge
were located on a nodal line separating two active but out-
of-phase modal areas of the soundboard, it seems clear that
such a bridge motion could be induced reciprocally by driv-
ing the soundboard. According to experimental results it is
likely that soundboard response to forces arising from trans-
verse string vibration but directed generally parallel to the
plane of the soundboard ~and not related to longitudinal
string modes! may be quite significant tonally. The following
inconclusive evidence is based on the author’s experiment.
String-frequency forces acting generally parallel to the
soundboard were sensed by a miniature accelerometer at-
tached to the top of the treble bridge and oriented to have its
primary sensitivity in the direction of the strings. A second
accelerometer with primary sensitivity normal to the sound-
board was placed at the same location. Results were com-
pared by listening alternately to the output of these acceler-
ometers as tones were sounded. In the region around C5–C6
the tonal effects were quite different. As expected, motion
normal to the soundboard appeared to be responsible for
much of the ‘‘body’’ of the tone, but amplification of the
output of the ‘‘normal’’ accelerometer did not seem to give a
convincingly realistic piano tone no matter how the spectrum
was shaped. In contrast, the output of the longitudinal accel-
erometer, while lacking ‘‘body,’’ seemed to contain an es-
sential ingredient of airborne piano tone that was missing
from the other one. The tonal importance of the ingredient
missing in the ‘‘normal’’ signal appeared greater in the treble
part of the scale, where the strings form quite a large angle
701 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 100, No. 2, Pt. 1, August 1996
with the direction of the bridge. What was this ingredient?
Did it originate directly from string motion or indirectly due
to motion of the soundboard? If directly from string motion,
did it come from the soundboard-plane component of normal
string motion, or from some other component? Motion of the
top of the bridge in a direction parallel to the plane of the
soundboard could arise as a consequence of the ‘‘down bear-
ing’’ previously mentioned, because deflection of the strings
in passing over the bridge would allow components of trans-
verse string forces to be directed parallel to the soundboard.
In fact, string–bridge geometry can be adjusted so that static
bearing forces are not required in order to produce such com-
ponents.
Another longitudinal force is evidenced by a sharpening
of transverse string frequencies that occurs at the onset of a
piano tone, easily observed by comparing the frequency of
the fundamental transverse string mode with that of a stable
oscillator at almost the same frequency. This ‘‘frequency
modulation,’’ caused by an increase in string tension due to
large initial string excursions, was investigated by Shankland
and Coltman.75 Hall and Askenfelt76 have noted that the
amount of the frequency shift should be proportional to the
Young’s modulus and to the area of the string and inversely
proportional to the square of the tension and to the speaking
length. The string tension might also be expected to have a
periodic component at a frequency twice that of the string
fundamental, since extremes of string displacement occur
twice per period. Does such a frequency-doubling effect con-
tribute significantly to the timbre of airborne piano tone?
More recent research has suggested that such frequencies are
present. ~See the author’s Letter to the Editor, in the October
issue.!
III. THE SOUNDBOARD AND THE DURATION OF
PIANO TONES
The soundboard and bridges normally are the controlling
elements in the duration of piano tones. In general, the
greater the mobility at the driving point of the soundboard,
the more rapidly energy will be taken from the strings. To a
very rough first approximation, the piano behaves as a con-
stant ‘‘Q’’ device, tending to maintain constant the product
of frequency and 60-dB decay time. In 1947 Martin77 mea-
sured the 60-dB duration of piano tones. Interpreting his data
~his Figs. 3 and 5! somewhat broadly, it is possible to con-
clude that the pianos he measured had apparent Q’s around
400. In comparison, the Q’s of plain steel strings mounted on
a low-loss monochord can easily be 15 000–20 000. ~A
‘‘Q’’ of 15 000 corresponds to a 60-dB duration of about 33
s at 1 kHz.! Martin also found that piano tones do not in
general decay at a constant rate but decay most rapidly at
onset and, at some time later, assume a smaller decay rate.
This behavior is one of the defining characteristics of piano
tones. It can be demonstrated that if the more rapid initial
decay is eliminated, the tone does not sound piano-like, and
that it is not appropriate for standard piano literature. How-
ever, if the initial decay rate is too rapid, or if the initial drop
before the transition to a slower decay rate is too great, the
instrument will be regarded as having excessively short tone
duration, and musicians will not like to play it. Several ex-
planations have been offered, almost all of which seem to
Harold A. Conklin, Jr.: Piano structure 701
have some validity. In a treble piano tone with considerable
energy in the higher partials, the shorter duration of the
higher partials can make the initial decay rate seem more
rapid. If one measures a slightly out-of-tune piano tone gen-
erated by unison strings, the initial in-phase nature of the
string vibration gradually becomes out-of-phase, and energy
transmission to the soundboard becomes less rapid. Non-
linearity of the bridge-soundboard system has also been sug-
gested, as have differences in the load seen by strings mov-
ing ~initially! in a plane normal to the soundboard and ~later!
in a plane parallel with the soundboard. Hundley et al.78 in-
vestigated all of the above and, using an electrical analog
model, concluded that multiple strings, initially-in-phase and
‘‘nearly-unison tuned,’’ were mainly responsible. They con-
cluded further that nonlinearity of the bridge and soundboard
was not a factor. Weinreich79 observed that a single string in
a piano can produce an acoustical double decay having
slopes that correspond to the decay rates of the string mo-
tions normal to and parallel with the soundboard. More im-
portantly, he analyzed the effects of mutual coupling be-
tween bi-chord strings, via the motional impedance at the
bridge, concluded that because of this coupling ‘‘...the indi-
vidual strings cannot be viewed as independent dynamical
systems,’’ and that the exact nature of the tonal decay char-
acteristic is determined by and varies with the amount and
nature of the coupling, as well as with the relative tuning of
the strings. More recently, Nakakmura,80 using equivalent
electrical circuits, has analyzed by computer the effect of
mutual string coupling, assuming a purely resistive sound-
board load. He has shown the theoretical results in terms of
decay rate for different degrees of coupling and for different
relative tunings of the strings. It is important for the designer
to be aware that the design of the bridges determines the
nature of the inter-string coupling for a given soundboard
and that the nature of the coupling will affect significantly
the ‘‘personality’’ of the piano.
IV. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
The author has long used mechanical impedance mea-
surements and modal studies in piano design work and
would feel severely handicapped without these techniques.
Both require real hardware. It has been necessary to build an
actual soundboard and to install it in an appropriate test fix-
ture, preferably the piano rim or case with which it is to be
used, in order to find out how it will vibrate. Through finite
element analysis81 ~FEA! it is now possible to predict the
vibrational characteristics of a mechanical system by com-
puter analysis of a software model of the system, without
having to build a real prototype. A detailed comparison of
the results of modal analysis of the actual piano soundboard
with the results predicted by FEA for the same soundboard
has been made and reported.82,83 The results show that
soundboard vibrational characteristics can be predicted quite
accurately without having to build a piano. Interaction be-
tween the soundboard and the piano case was found to be
rather significant, and it was found to be desirable to model
the soundboard in combination with the piano case in order
to obtain the most realistic results. Extensive use of FEA to
702 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 100, No. 2, Pt. 1, August 1996
FIG. 31. Equilibrium moisture content ~EMC! of wood versus ambient rela-
tive humidity at 75 F ~23.89 °C!.
predict the performance of developing piano designs may be
expected as the costs of software and computer time de-
crease.
V. DISADVANTAGES OF WOOD
The use of wood for soundboards has some undesirable
consequences which occur because ~a! wood is a hygro-
scopic material that adsorbs or releases moisture until a con-
dition of equilibrium with the surrounding environment is
reached; and ~b! because the amount of moisture in a piece
of wood affects its weight and size. The equilibrium mois-
ture content ~EMC! of wood, normally expressed as a per-
centage of the dry weight, depends on the ambient relative
humidity and temperature. Relative humidity is the more sig-
nificant factor for pianos, since they are generally kept in the
‘‘normal room temperature’’ range. EMC is determined by
first weighing a wood sample, then baking it at a temperature
just above the boiling point of water until the weight stabi-
lizes. %EMC5100 ~original weight2dry weight!/dry
weight!.
All woods held at the same relative humidity and tem-
perature will equalize at approximately the same %EMC.84
Figure 31 shows EMC as a function of relative humidity for
Sitka spruce at 75 °F ~23.89 °C!.85 It follows that the mois-
ture content of the wooden parts of pianos kept indoors in the
U.S. can range between approximately 3%–15% depending
on geographic location. Summers in southern Florida and
winters in northern Minnesota are examples of extremes. Be-
tween 0 and about 30% EMC, wood increases in size, as well
as in weight with increasing EMC. Dimensional changes oc-
cur chiefly in the cross-grain and thickness directions for
quarter-sawn wood, with hardly any change in the direction
of the grain. Unless held at constant relative humidity and
temperature, the strips in wooden soundboards are always
changing in width and thickness. Several undesirable effects
stem from this, perhaps the most significant having to do
with stability of tuning.86 Soundboard strips tend to expand
in width as the EMC increases, but expansion is resisted by
the ribs. Soundboards therefore behave as humidity sensors,
and tend to change their curvature constantly. Rising relative
humidity causes the ‘‘crown’’ to increase and ~usually! the
tonal pitch of the instrument rises. Decreasing humidity has
Harold A. Conklin, Jr.: Piano structure 702

FIG. 32. Comparison of modal frequencies for five aluminum sandwich
soundboards of various thicknesses ~circles! and for a standard wooden
soundboard ~hexagons! ~20–200 Hz!.
the opposite effect. The primary purpose of the varnish or
other finish on a soundboard, aside from giving a pleasing
appearance, is to increase the time constant for moisture
transmission into and out of the soundboard so as to improve
short-term tuning stability. No normal finish can prevent
changes in EMC, but some are more effective than others in
slowing the change. The normal finish on a piano sound-
board seems not to have a significant direct effect on the
tone. Changes in relative humidity and temperature can also
have an undesirable long-term effect on pianos because criti-
cal glue bonds ~such as ribs-to-soundboard, bridges-to-
soundboard, and soundboard-to-case! are subjected to cyclic
stresses that may eventually loosen or destroy them.
VI. ALTERNATE SOUNDBOARD MATERIALS
The disadvantages of wood have annoyed piano owners
and builders from the beginning. Various attempts have been
made to construct successful soundboards from nonhygro-
scopic materials. Marcuse87 has noted that Johann Jacob Goll
experimented with soundboards made of iron or copper in
Vienna in 1823. In Sweden Fridolf Frankel was building
pianos with steel soundboards as early as 1914.88 Patents
show numerous examples of soundboards made from mate-
rials other than wood. For example U.S. Patent 3,477,330,
describes a soundboard of sandwich construction having a
cellular core with plastic facings. In 1961 the American harp-
sichord builder, John Challis, constructed a piano having a
‘‘metal soundboard and bridge’’ that was demonstrated at a
concert at Town Hall in New York City in 1967.89 A record-
ing of this instrument was made.90 Thus far none of these
innovations seems to have prevailed in the piano. Several
papers91–95 have reported work on nonwood acoustical ele-
ments for violins and guitars. Reference 94 is a patent dis-
closing a laminated composite soundboard material intended
to match or surpass the physical and radiation properties of
wood.
Experimental piano soundboards were constructed in the
form of a sandwich having a light-weight, essentially isotro-
pic core and thin isotropic faces. Figure 32 shows approxi-
mate modal frequencies for five such soundboards, all of the
703 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 100, No. 2, Pt. 1, August 1996
same shape but differing in thickness, and also for a conven-
tional ribbed wooden soundboard of the same size. The ex-
perimental soundboards had cellular cores of aluminum that
were covered with aluminum facings approximately 0.2 mm
thick. Each aluminum soundboard weighed approximately
3.6 kg, compared with about 9 kg for a conventional sound-
board. Installed in pianos of otherwise identical design, these
soundboards produced an enormous spread in output level
and tone quality, the thickest having several decibels more
output than the standard piano but having unacceptably short
tonal duration. The thinnest was slightly less loud than the
wooden soundboard, and had an interesting and very pleas-
ing ~but noticeably different! quality of tone. Only diligent
applied research is needed in order to produce a significant
and musically successful improvement in piano soundboards.
A further incentive for such research ought to be the increas-
ing scarcity of good soundboard wood. As recently as 25
years ago, high-quality spruce for soundboards was readily
available in strips as wide as 15 cm, and it was possible to
fabricate a large soundboard entirely from the wood of a
single tree. Makers today must accept much narrower strips
and wood of lower quality.
VII. THE CASE
In almost all contemporary pianos ~except upright pi-
anos having so-called ‘‘backless’’ construction!, the sound-
board is terminated vibrationally around its outer edges by
being glued to a heavy wooden case or frame, usually called
a ‘‘rim’’ in grand pianos or a ‘‘back’’ in upright pianos. The
case also supports and holds in correct relation all the other
parts of the instrument, including the string plate, the action
mechanism, and the keys. The peripheral glue joint of the
soundboard is normally a simple lap joint, 2–4 cm wide, that
connects the edges of the soundboard to the case. This ter-
mination appears to function somewhere between the
clamped and simply supported conditions.96 The major case
parts are usually constructed of a dense hardwood such as
maple in order to minimize motion of the case. In certain
grand piano models that the author tested, the substitution for
maple of a wood of lower density in the rim led to a clearly
audible though not readily measurable reduction in the qual-
ity of the tone.
In many grand pianos the curved rim is formed from one
continuous piece of laminated hardwood. The rim for a large
grand piano may weigh 12–14 kg per meter of perimeter,
and may be 8 to 9 cm thick at its base. The case for a 2.74-m
grand piano may weigh 150–200 kg, compared with around
500 kg ~1100 lb.! for the complete piano. For best tone and
efficiency the case should provide a large impedance discon-
tinuity at the edges of the soundboard so that as little sound-
board vibration as possible will be transmitted into the case.
In even the best contemporary pianos, however, motion of
various parts of the case is readily measurable when the pi-
anos are being played. It is often noticeable to the touch
when tones having fundamental frequencies near the first
soundboard mode are sounded. Piano cases have their own
vibrational modes; the designer should be sure that these do
not absorb significant energy that ought to be available to be
radiated by the soundboard. Major case modes have been
Harold A. Conklin, Jr.: Piano structure 703
 FIG. 33. Individual string tension calculated for 2.74-m grand piano ~circles! and for 1720 Cristofori piano ~squares!.
found to exist in grand pianos at frequencies below that of
the first soundboard mode.97
The vertical outer side of the rim of a grand piano is
normally around 0.3 m high. The soundboard, an approxi-
mately flat horizontal surface, is usually positioned about
halfway between the top and the bottom of the rim, at an
elevation 0.8–0.9 m above the floor. The lid of the piano,
when raised, acts as a reflector for high-frequency radiation
from the soundboard. It forms, with the upper surface of the
soundboard, a horn-like acoustical corner that improves ra-
diation efficiency at medium and lower frequencies. The rim
and the lid together also act as a kind of baffle to reduce the
tendency for energy from the top and bottom of the sound-
board to cancel. The complete assembly rather effectively
re-directs acoustical energy from the soundboard toward an
audience located in the direction toward which the lid opens.
At seat locations for which the ears of listeners are at about
the same elevation as the soundboard, the side of the rim
prevents direct line-of-sight radiation from soundboard to lis-
tener. At such locations particularly, and for listeners gener-
ally, including the pianist, the lid of a grand piano signifi-
cantly increases the level and enhances the quality of the
tone. Anyone doubting the benefits of the lid for the pianist
should have the pleasure of sitting at the keyboard of an
instrument on stage, in the solo position, in a large concert
hall. A very significant portion of what the pianist hears
while playing seems to come from the hall, not from the
piano itself, and is delayed in time, reverberant, and, in a hall
with good acoustics, usually quite beautiful, but very indi-
rect. The reflections from the lid to the pianist, essentially
undelayed, provide direct and immediate feedback and a
good sense of connection with the piano as the sound source.
The elevation angle of the lid for best performance has
been found to be rather critical. For a particular concert
grand piano on stage in the 3700-seat Cincinnati Music Hall,
the optimum value was found to be about 3263 deg above
704 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 100, No. 2, Pt. 1, August 1996
the horizontal. Within this range the piano sounded loudest
and had the best quality of tone at most locations in the hall.
This result was arrived at by listening at many stations while
the piano was being played. The lid was arranged so that its
angle could be adjusted quickly to any value between 0 and
45 degrees. For lid angles smaller than the optimum ~such as
would occur with the lid on the short prop! the quality of the
tone remained as good as at the optimum angle, but the out-
put level was attenuated. For lid angles greater than the op-
timum value the loudness did not in general increase and the
tone seemed more ‘‘direct’’ and less pleasing.
At performances during which the pianist is also the
conductor, the piano lid is often removed so that all players
have clear sight lines. At most seat locations, especially in a
large hall, the sound of the piano without the lid is very
noticeably less satisfactory than with the lid in place.
VIII. THE STRING PLATE
Until around the beginning of the 19th century the load-
bearing structure of pianos was made entirely of wood. By
the end of that century, cast iron string plates were used to
support the pull of the strings in almost all pianos, as they are
today.98 The transition to string plates resulted from efforts
to increase the acoustical output, extend the keyboard, and
improve the tone. Newer pianos had more keys, used strings
of larger diameter having higher tension, and employed three
instead of two strings per key for all except the bass keys.
Bass strings were given a helical wrapping in order that their
tension could be increased. All-wood construction became
obsolete because wooden frames were too flexible and too
weak to provide stable pitch and long life under the in-
creased loads. ~Wooden pianos with warped frames and/or
failed glue joints can be found in museums and storage areas
around the world.! Figure 33 compares the tensions for indi-
vidual strings of a contemporary concert grand with approxi-
Harold A. Conklin, Jr.: Piano structure 704
mate tensions calculated for the 1720 Cristofori.99 The aver-
age string pull for the old piano was probably around 69 N,
compared with about 834 N for the contemporary instru-
ment. The total estimated string pull for the 54-key, all bi-
chord Cristofori is around 7500 N ~1680 pounds!. The con-
temporary piano, a Baldwin model SD-10B, has 243 strings
with a total calculated pull of about 45,690 pounds ~203,239
N!. Its string plate is made of gray cast iron and weighs
about 170 kg ~375 pounds!.
The extreme ends of each string terminate on the plate,
one end at a tuning pin, the other at a ‘‘hitch pin.’’ The plate
must provide sufficient strength to support the pull of the
strings, sufficient stiffness to provide acceptable tunability
~so that the tension of each string will be relatively indepen-
dent of the tension of the remaining strings!, and sufficient
stability so as not to limit the longevity of tuning. Plates
must be rather massive in order to satisfy these requirements,
and are therefore inefficient acoustical radiators compared
with soundboards. It is believed by some people that gray
cast iron having certain damping characteristics is the only
material suitable for piano plates. However, the author has
not found evidence for this, having designed successful in-
struments with steel plates, which have the advantage of be-
ing less susceptible than cast iron to the phenomenon known
as ‘‘creep.’’ Creep100–103 is the flow or plastic deformation of
metals over long periods of time at stresses lower than the
yield strength. Gray cast iron in a piano plate assumes a large
initial strain immediately, but continues to deflect gradually
under load, approaching final ‘‘stability’’ as an exponential
function of time, perhaps explaining in part why piano mak-
ers traditionally needed about a year to produce a stable pi-
ano.
The string plate is normally attached at points around its
outside edges to the piano case. Its mass helps to produce a
high-impedance termination for the soundboard. Plates are
complex structures with many vibrational modes, and it is
important tonally to consider that the termination for one end
of the speaking length of each string is located on the plate.
Because the heavy plate is not useful as a tone radiator,
string energy dissipated within it will be wasted. The plate
should therefore present to the strings a very high mechani-
cal impedance so that negligible string energy will be ex-
FIG. 34. Mobility ~dark curve! and phase ~light curve! at agraffe area on
string plate that had prominent modes at string frequencies.
705 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 100, No. 2, Pt. 1, August 1996
FIG. 35. Acoustical output at the fundamental frequency ~f 5329.63 Hz! of
E4 ~key 44!. Upper curve shows output versus time after addition of a
7.5-kg lumped mass near the string terminating point on the plate. Lower
curve gives output versus time with the 7.5-kg mass removed. Curves show
a significant reduction both in output and in tonal duration due to a string
plate resonance ~Fig. 34! near 329 Hz.
pended in moving it; the plate should not vibrate when the
piano is played. Attenuation of partials in the radiated tone
can occur if the terminating areas have major modes at string
frequencies. Figure 34 shows mobility magnitude ~dark
curve! and phase ~light curve! measured at the terminating
area for the mid-scale strings on a plate that exhibited several
prominent modes between 300–1200 Hz. This large grand
piano sounded rather ‘‘thin’’ in mid-range. Figure 35 shows
the increase in acoustical output at the fundamental fre-
quency of tone E4 ~329.63 Hz! that accompanied the tempo-
rary addition of a lumped mass of about 7.5 kg to this area.
The test mass increased the peak output level about 7 dB and
greatly extended the duration of the tone. Figure 36 shows
mobility at the same point with the mass in place. The mass
attenuated the offending plate mode and shifted its frequency
from around 329 Hz to around 220 Hz, but other sizable
modes remained. A plate of different design gave the low-
ered mobility curve ~phase omitted! shown by Fig. 37, and
produced ‘‘fatter’’ mid-scale tone. Ideally, the mobility at
the string-terminating area of the plate should be at least 30
dB below the mobility at the soundboard bridges.
A major problem in designing grand piano string plates
FIG. 36. Mobility ~dark curve! and phase ~light curve! at same terminating
area on string plate as in Fig. 34, but with the 7.5-kg lumped mass added.
Harold A. Conklin, Jr.: Piano structure 705
FIG. 37. Mobility at string terminating area on a plate of improved design.
Compare with Fig. 34.
is to achieve a high-impedance speaking-length termination
for the treble strings ~C5 and above!. In upright pianos all
speaking lengths can terminate directly on a massive plate
panel without difficulty. In grand pianos problems are pre-
sented because the plate lies between the strings and the
hammers. The bass and mid-scale strings of grand pianos
usually terminate at small brass parts called ‘‘agraffes’’ that
are screwed into the top surface of the plate. Agraffes tend to
be unsatisfactory for treble use due to excessive losses and
mechanical clearance problems. The treble termination used
in upright pianos cannot readily be used in the high-treble
range of grand pianos because mechanical interference be-
tween the hammers and the plate would prevent the extreme
treble hammers from striking the strings at the optimum
places. The standard solution is to cast into the plate one or
more beams called ‘‘capo’’ ~head! bars. They are situated
above the treble strings and out of the way of the hammers.
A capo bar has a V-shaped section having an apex that con-
tacts the strings and defines the ends of their speaking
lengths. The capo bar joins the rest of the plate only at each
end and, in deflecting the strings, it must withstand forces
equal to as much as 30% of the string tension. Most manu-
facturers have chosen to use two relatively short capo bars,
each terminating the strings for 15–18 keys. Capo bars can
have major vibrational modes in the 1–2 kHz range ~see Fig.
38!. They generally provide a lower terminating impedance
than found in well-designed upright pianos. When a treble
piano hammer strikes the strings near the capo bar, various
plate modes are excited and are heard as part of the tonal
onset transient. This tends to differentiate the treble tone of
grands from that of upright pianos, in which the most promi-
nent plate modes are different in frequency and tend to be
more highly damped. Alternative treble string terminating
schemes have been used successfully in some contemporary
grand pianos.104
Early pianos, including the Cristofori, used a single-
deflection scheme to terminate the speaking lengths at one
end. Typically, a single pin was placed at the end point and
the string was deflected a few degrees at that pin, beyond
which it ran directly to a tuning pin. Such terminations may
allow too much energy to escape from the speaking length.
706 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 100, No. 2, Pt. 1, August 1996
FIG. 38. Mobility ~in direction of strings! at center of capo bar, showing
several large modes in 1–2 kHz range.
Two deflections are employed almost universally at each end
of each speaking length in modern grand pianos. The spans
between the first and second bends are usually damped by
felt in the bass and middle registers, where the losses are not
harmful. In the treble, damping between the first and second
deflection points can reduce noticeably the duration of upper
partials, which dulls the tone. The treble speaking-length ter-
mination on a grand plate typically consists of a pair of
closely spaced deflection points, the first on the bottom of the
capo bar, the second on the tuning pin panel. Nothing
touches the span between these two points. With this ar-
rangement, losses beyond the second deflection point have
only a small effect on the tone. It has sometimes been be-
lieved that better tone can be achieved by tuning the short
intermediate spans to harmonics of the speaking length. Ac-
tually, it is best to tune the intermediate spans away from the
frequencies of speaking-length partials; if they resonate too
near the speaking length partials, beats will be generated that
can give a rough quality to the tone.
At the soundboard bridges, a pair of metal ‘‘bridgepins’’
spaced one to two cm apart terminate the speaking lengths
by deflecting the strings through angles of 10 to 15 deg.
Beyond the bridges, the strings extend over varying distances
to hitch pins. Usually these are steel pins three to four mm in
diameter that are driven at an angle into holes in the plate.
An alternate type of pin, about 5.5 mm in diameter, is in-
stalled normal to the surface of the plate so that the strings
can be moved up or down on the pin to permit adjustment of
the bearing force.105 The nonspeaking string spans between
the bridges and the hitch pins also influence the tone. Figures
20–28 show that the strings modify significantly the modal
frequencies of the soundboard as well as the impedances
seen at the bridges. The spans of the strings between the
bridges and the hitch pins contribute to this effect. Through-
out most of the piano scale these sections are shorter and
therefore stiffer than the speaking lengths. Increasing the
length of these nonspeaking sections tends to lower the fre-
quencies of the lower soundboard modes and can also affect
the efficiency and loudness of the instrument at higher fre-
quencies. Below mid-scale these sections are usually damped
with muting tape. If left undamped, their tones, often rela-
Harold A. Conklin, Jr.: Piano structure 706
 64
tively low in frequency, may be excited during playing and
can have sufficient duration to be audible after the speaking
65
lengths have been damped by the release of keys or pedal.
In the treble range the bridge-to-hitch pin string lengths 66
are shorter and do not ring as long. It is often advantageous
to leave them unmuted, and to ‘‘tune’’ them by selecting
67
their lengths in relation to the speaking lengths. Coupling
through the strings themselves between the speaking lengths 68
and the corresponding bridge-to-hitch pin lengths is rela-
tively weak because of the double-deflection termination at
69
the bridge. Consequently the short lengths are not excited
directly from their speaking lengths but, instead, through
motion of the bridge. The ringing produced by unmuted 70
treble lengths is generally pleasant and reverberation-like
and tends to extend the apparent duration of the upper treble
tones. The effect is enhanced by designs in which the ‘‘Q’’
71
of the short lengths is maintained as high as possible. Some 72
makers prefer a drier sound and choose to mute the treble
73
nonspeaking lengths.
The plates of modern grand pianos usually cover an ap-
74
preciable area of the top of the soundboard. Tests have indi- 75
cated that the normal degree of covering used in one cur-
rently produced make causes no significant loss in either
output level or quality of tone. The testing procedure in-
76
77
volved building a piano having an extremely open plate de-
sign and testing this at intervals as sections of the open areas 78
were covered with removable panels. There was even an
indication that output in some frequency ranges was im-
79
proved by the addition of the panels. All of the removable
80
panels were located between the treble bridge and the curved
side of the rim. This is significant because those areas of the
soundboard near the straight side of the rim, the ones closest 81
to the ‘‘corner’’ formed by the soundboard and the lid, al-
82
most certainly contribute more to the total radiated output
than the areas covered by the plate. 83
Attached beneath the front of a grand piano string plate
is a wooden ‘‘wrestplank’’ into which tuning pins are driven.
84
It seems incongruous that today, more than 270 years after 85
Cristofori built his 1720 model, pianos still employ essen- 86
tially the same rather unsatisfactory means for tensioning the
87
strings that was used in that instrument. Various alternative
88
schemes have been proposed, including one recently 89
patented106 by the author which completely eliminates the
wrestplank. 90
Editorial Note: This review and tutorial article will con-
clude in the near future with Part III—Piano strings and scale
design. 91
92
58
Reference 4, p. 52.
59
Forest Products Laboratory, Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering
93
Material, Agriculture Handbook 72 ~U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washing-
ton, DC, 1987!, Chap. 3.
94
60
E. Fukada, ‘‘Vibrational study of the wood used for the sound boards of
pianos,’’ Nature 66~4227!, 772–773 ~1950!.
61 95
D. Holtz, ‘‘On some important properties of non-modified coniferous and
leaved woods in view of mechanical and acoustical data in piano sound-
96
boards,’’ Archiwum Akustyki 9 ~1!, 37–57 ~1974!.
62 97
D. W. Haines, C. J. Hutchins, C. H. Lee, and D. A. Thompson, ‘‘Mechani-
98
cal properties of sitka spruce for guitars,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Suppl. 1
61, S35 ~1977!. 99
63
E. Lieber, ‘‘The influence of the Soundboard on Piano Sound,’’ Das
Musikinstrument 304–316 ~Feb. 1979!.
707 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 100, No. 2, Pt. 1, August 1996
E. Rajcan, ‘‘Some Differences in Physico-Acoustic Characteristics of
‘Resonant’ and Standard Spruce Wood,’’ Acoustica 48, 58–60 ~1981!.
S. Marcuse, A Survey of Musical Instruments ~Harper and Row, New
York, 1975!, pp. 255 and 348.
K. Wogram, ‘‘Acoustical Research on Pianos: Vibrational Characteristics
of the Soundboard,’’ Das Musikinstrument 24, 694–702, 776–782, 872–
880 ~1980!.
H. Suzuki, ‘‘Vibration and radiation of a piano soundboard,’’ J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 80, 1573–1582 ~1986!.
K. Wogram, ‘‘The strings and the soundboard,’’ in Five Lectures on the
Acoustics of the Piano, edited by A. Askenfelt ~Royal Swedish Academy
of Music, Stockholm, 1990!.
T. Rossing, ‘‘Vibrational Modes of a Piano Soundboard,’’ lecture given at
Piano Acoustics Conference, Steinway and Sons, New York, 20 May
1989.
H. Suzuki, ‘‘Vibration and sound radiation of a piano soundboard,’’ lec-
ture given at Piano Acoustics Conference, Steinway and Sons, New York,
20 May 1989.
L. Brillouin, Wave Propagation in Periodic Structures ~Dover, New York,
1953!, Orig. Pub. 1946.
H. A. Conklin, Jr., U.S. Patent 3,866,506, ‘‘Soundboard Construction for
Stringed Musical Instruments,’’ ~18 Feb. 1975!.
P. H. Bilhuber and C. A. Johnson, ‘‘Influence of the soundboard on piano
tone quality,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 11, 311–320 ~1940!.
Reference 28, p. 1480, Figs. 9 and 10.
R. S. Shankland and J. W. Coltman, ‘‘The departure of the overtones of a
vibrating wire from a true harmonic series,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 10,
161–166 ~1939!.
Reference 23, p. 1629, Eq. ~3!.
D. W. Martin, ‘‘Decay rates of piano tones,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 19,
535–541 ~1947!.
T. C. Hundley, D. W. Martin, and H. Benioff, ‘‘Factors contributing to the
multiple rate of piano tone decay,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 64, 1303–1309
~1978!.
Reference 28.
I. Nakamkura, ‘‘Fundamental theory and computer simulation of the de-
cay characteristics of piano sound,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Jpn. ~E! 10~5!, 289–
297 ~1989! ~in English!.
R. D. Cook, Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis ~Wiley,
New York, 1974!.
J. Kindel and I. Wang, ‘‘Vibrations of a piano soundboard: Modal analysis
and finite element analysis,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Suppl. 1 81, S61 ~1987!.
J. C. Kindel, ‘‘Modal Analysis and Finite Element Analysis of a Piano
Soundboard,’’ thesis, University of Cincinnati, Div. of Graduate Studies
and Research, Cincinnati, OH, 1989.
Reference 63, Chap. 3, pp. 3–9.
Reference 59, data from Table 38, pp. 312–313.
R. W. Young, ‘‘Influence of humidity on the tuning of a piano,’’ J.
Acoust, Soc. Am. 21, 580–585 ~1949!,
Reference 65, p. 348.
According to Frankel’s promotional literature ~from the author’s file!.
D. Henahan, ‘‘Loesser, Pianist, Exhumes ‘Ghosts’ to Mark Halloween,’’
New York Times, Mon., 30 Oct. 1967, a review of the concert.
International Piano Library, LP Record IPL-102A, ‘‘ ‘Sic Transit Gloria
Mundi’ Arthur Loesser at New York’s Town Hall, October 29, 1967’’
~may no longer be available—IPL address was 215 W. 91st St., New
York, NY 10024!.
J. C. Schelling, ‘‘The violin as a circuit,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 35, 326–
338 ~1963!, Sec. VIII, pp. 36–38, ‘‘On the requirements of wood.’’
D. W. Haines, N. Chang, and D. A. Thompson, ‘‘Can spruce be re-
placed?,’’ J. Acoust, Soc. Am. Suppl. 1 55, S49 ~1974!.
D. W. Haines, N. Chang, and C. M. Hutchins, ‘‘Violin with a graphite-
epoxy top plate,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Suppl. 1 57, S21 ~1975!.
D. W. Haines, U. S. Patent No. 4,364,990, ‘‘Construction Material for
Stringed Musical Instruments’’ ~31 March 1975!.
D. W. Haines, ‘‘Acoustical characterization of woods for guitars,’’ J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. Suppl. 1 71, S26 ~1982!.
Reference 83, pp. 156–157.
Reference 83, p. 164.
Reference 39, Chap. III, pp. 198–213.
Tensions for the 1720 Cristofori were calculated based on information in
Ref. 4, for brass strings and for an A4 frequency ‘‘a minor third below
A45440.’’ ~A45369.99 Hz.! Some additional string lengths were scaled
Harold A. Conklin, Jr.: Piano structure 707
 from Metropolitan Museum of Art photo Neg. No. 213958. Founders’ Society Inc., Cleveland, OH, 1958!, pp. 177–180.
100
S. Epstein, Alloys of Iron and Carbon ~McGraw-Hill, New York, 1936– 104
H. A. Conklin, Jr., U. S. Patent 3,477,331, ‘‘Forward Termination Means
37!. for the Speaking Length of Piano Strings and the Like’’ ~11 November
101
J. D. Lubahn and R. P. Felgar, Plascity and Creep of Metals ~Wiley, New 1969!.
105
York, 1961!, Chap. 6, pp. 128–226. H. A. Conklin, Jr., U.S. Patent No. 3,478,635, ‘‘Hitch Pin for Stringed
102
Metals Handbook ~American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH, Instruments’’ ~18 November 1969!.
106
1985!, 9th ed., Vol. 8, pp. 301–307. H. A. Conklin, Jr., U.S. Patent No. 4,920,847, ‘‘Tuning Pin for Pianos’’
103
The Gray Iron Castings Handbook, edited by F. Walton ~The Gray Iron ~1 May 1990!.

708 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 100, No. 2, Pt. 1, August 1996 Harold A. Conklin, Jr.: Piano structure 708