Tuner broke a string - will that damage my grand in any way?

[emeraldlake]

the other day my tuner broke a string on my 7-ft grand.  Although he installed a new string right afterwards, I've been wondering if it has caused any harm to the piano.  The piano is only 3 yr-old.  Somehow it sounds not as good as before after the incident.  Is it just a psychological thing?  Would like to hear your opinions.  I know what happened has happened - no use to cry over spilt milk, but still...  just wondering...

thx!

[timothy42b]

Strings break.  It's not unusual. 

They break when being tuned, they break when being played.

Gospel piano players hold the pedal down and bang, they break a bass string or two once a week. 

As long as you're not abusing the piano it shouldn't do any harm. 

[hfmadopter]

The new string will have to take a set, it will stretch a little and need retuning . If it's the same grade string as the original it should end up sounding the same in the end. But yes, strings do break, it jsut happens sometimes.

[quantum]

Tires go flat, knives get dull, piano strings break....  

A broken string is nothing, it won't harm your piano.  Think of it as replacing a light bulb.  It does matter if the tuner replaced the string with a comparable grade as hfmadopter points out.  The new string will need to stretch, and will most likely be out of tune for a few weeks.  Some tuners mute new strings in order that they don't give wonky unisons and are allowed time to stretch.  The next time your tech visits, they may be able to voice that string to fit better once it has had time to settle.  

If the string replaced is not of similar grade, you may hear the difference more.  It's like replacing a light bulb in a room with one of a different white balance to all the other light bulbs in that same room.  A tuner did that with several strings on my previous instrument.  The new strings were of higher quality and actually sounded better then the rest of the piano.  

[timothy42b]

  It does matter if the tuner replaced the string with a comparable grade as hfmadopter points out. 

Because of this, never discard the broken string.  The technician will measure it to ensure a good match.  I've heard several stories of people discarding the broken pieces and causing the tech a lot of grief.  You'd think they'd be standardized but they differ from note to note and from brand to brand of piano.

[quantum]

Because of this, never discard the broken string.  The technician will measure it to ensure a good match.  I've heard several stories of people discarding the broken pieces and causing the tech a lot of grief.  You'd think they'd be standardized but they differ from note to note and from brand to brand of piano.

The other thing a technician might do is to send all the broken pieces to a string maker, and have a custom string produced to specifically match the broken string. 

[timothy42b]

The other thing a technician might do is to send all the broken pieces to a string maker, and have a custom string produced to specifically match the broken string. 

It is also possible for a skilled technician to splice the string with good results

That was a surprise to me, I thought the knot would interfere with vibration, but it can work pretty well

[pytheamateur]

What's the industry position on a situation like this?  Is this regarded as a damage caused by the tuner, so that he has to compensate by replacing a new string for free.  Or is he entitled to charge for the string as well as the extra work he has to do?

What if you break a string of your teacher's piano?  Has this happened to anyone of you?

[timothy42b]

It is expected that occasionally a string will break during tuning, just as a light bulb will sometimes pop when you turn the switch on.

This is not negligence or incompetence, it's just the way things wear out.

Tuners expect to be be paid for the extra work of repairing the broken string, and that's fair. 

On your teacher's piano, in normal play, a string may break if that's its time to go.  I wouldn't expect a student to pay.  On the other hand if a student had a temper tantrum and banged fists on the keyboard and a string broke, I'd probably charge the parents. 

[pytheamateur]

  On the other hand if a student had a temper tantrum and banged fists on the keyboard and a string broke, I'd probably charge the parents. 

In terms of the mechanical damage /wear and tear that is done to the piano, is there actually a difference to playing Rachmaninov regularly?

[timothy42b]

In terms of the mechanical damage /wear and tear that is done to the piano, is there actually a difference to playing Rachmaninov regularly?

That's a good question.

I don't know.

I have not heard stories of people breaking strings on classical repertoire very often.  I do know of gospel piano players breaking bass strings on a regular (sometimes weekly) basis using the pedal and playing loud. 

I also don't know if children really can break a string pounding with a fist. 

[silverwoodpianos]

When tuning a piano the tuner does not break strings.

At modern pitch requirement of A440 the strings and wire are pulled to approximately 66% of their tensile strength, so if one breaks it is not because of negligent work technique it is because the wire is damaged or has a weak spot.

 If strings or wire break at 2/3 of its tensile strength then it should not have been in the piano in the first place.

There is no warranty on strings or wire from any manufacturer.

[timothy42b]

At modern pitch requirement of A440 the strings and wire are pulled to approximately 66% of their tensile strength,

I believe you, but............

It seems to me that figure must be a band rather than a point.

When you tell me 66%, I assume you are being accurate to the digit.  We know it will vary, but it will be no less than 65.5 and no greater than 66.5.  If you'd said 60%, I would have assumed between 50 and 70.

All the notes are different.  But not all the wire sizes are different, so at least some wires must have more tension than others to get the different pitches.  Any idea what the spread of tension is?

When a note is played, the string must deflect from straight.  That increases tension.  Does that get close to the tensile strength range? 

[keys60]

Haven't been here for a while. I agree with Dan Silverwood, tuners do not break strings, strings break. I get the occasional customer that hasn't had their childhood piano tuned in 20 years, now their kid is taking lessons. I feel lucky getting out of there without snapping a string. No way will I pull it up to 440 the first tuning either. Between a little rust bonding the string to the V bar or on the coil and the string dropping a whole step, it can be a pain. The only time a tech snaps a string is the occasional brain fart by putting the tuning hammer on the wrong pin when you're just getting into that tuning "rhythm". Lack of eyesight and concentration. That's a rare scenario.

[nyiregyhazi]

When you tell me 66%, I assume you are being accurate to the digit.  We know it will vary, but it will be no less than 65.5 and no greater than 66.5.  If you'd said 60%, I would have assumed between 50 and 70.

This premise is nonsense. It wouldn't bother me greatly, but seeing as you're in lecturing mode I'll tell you why the premise is totally invalid and why a person has no right to preach fallacious rules for how estimates are to be performed. I remember a teacher at school trying to tell me that things have to be done that way, but they simply don't and it's nobody's business to tell people how they are allowed to make estimates. A person has every right to give their best estimate. That doesn't mean they are defining a range of accuracy. If I want to define a range of error I'll do so. Giving an estimate that I believe is my best guess at the actual figure does not mean that I am defining a range of error with certainty. It means that I am giving what I believe is the closest possible guess, rather than a rounder number that I suspect is actually more distant from the correct figure.

If my best estimate for the amount of change in my pocket is that I believe it's close to 3.50, I'll say so. That figure does not say- I definitely have between 3.45 and 3.55. It gives my best guess based on the situation. If I followed your rules about estimates, I'd only be allowed to guess that I have £3 or £4 and I may very well know that I have three pound coins and a fair amount of change that is definitely far closer to £3.50 than either figure. Even if I had no clue as whether it necessarily fell between 3 and 4 pounds, it's my right to go for what I believe represents the closest possible guess to the actual amount. If I remembered there being a single penny plus larger coins, I may even give an estimate of £3.51. I'm under no obligations to follow anyone else's synthetic rules, in a way that will quite possibly increase the likelihood of error within the estimate, simply because someone else believes that you are only allowed to make estimates based on round numbers.

Apologies for the rant, but it really annoys me when people try to impose artificial rules on others that are totally illogical.

Ps. If you really wanted to pick him for pedantic reasons, it's pretty self-evident that's he's suggested 2 3rds. So if you wanted to be pedantic, you'd have been far better off telling him to phrase it that way or to round 66.6 recurring UP to 67 percent. But if he'd followed your system of being artifically forced to round all the way to 60 or 70 it would have obscured and compromised the evident fact that he was suggesting that it's around 2/3rds. Far better to convey something closer to that than something further from it, for the sake of adhering to bogus rules. In your system, 2 3rds would be a banned estimate for anything- as it gives an infinite number of decimal places when taken literally. That's a very silly rule to place. Am I banned from estimating that a pizza has about 2 3rds remaining- simply because I can't prove that the actual figure is definitely within a infinitesimally small margin of error? People should give their best guesses- not make less accurate ones for the sake of pleasing people who like to create rules.

[timothy42b]

This premise is nonsense.

Apologies for the rant, but it really annoys me when people try to impose artificial rules on others that are totally illogical.

Ah, n, n, n..... You're in a bad mood again.  It's not unusual for you to be irritable in November, I suspect the declining light levels may have something to do with it.  Nor is it unusual for you to see the problem only in others, never yourself.

You have illustrated two points in your rant.

1) You are blissfully ignorant of the difference between accuracy and precision.

2)  You assume the way you do things is not only the way everybody does it, but the only way possible.

I did not invent the idea that the digits describe the level of known precision.  This is standard practice, taught explicitly in high school level chemistry and physics classes, but used in the real world every day by carpenters, plumbers, auto mechanics, farmers, etc.  I was not lecturing about something new, just leaving a friendly reminder for that which the other poster already knew. 

If I say the time is about a quarter past noon, that means something very different from me saying the time is 12:14.07. 

But, not to you. 

If I say I have a couple dollars in my pocket, that's because that's how precisely I know the amount.  I do not say I have $3.51 cents unless I know.  Apparently you do?? Really?  Most people don't out of common sense; I don't because it would be lying and that is against my ethics.  To give false information out of well intentioned ignorance is just as bad as a deliberate lie to me. 

[nyiregyhazi]

2)  You assume the way you do things is not only the way everybody does it, but the only way possible.

Quite the contrary. I believe that people have a right to estimate to the closest possible guess, should they choose. Whereas you tried to tell him that if he can't guarantee precision within half a percent on either side, he isn't allowed to guess at 66 percent. You're the only person telling others how to behave and your premise is utter nonsense. If he believes that the figure is around 66 rather than around either 60 or 70 percent, it's ludicrous that you think you can tell him that he should have chosen one of those figures, rather go with what he felt was a better estimate than either round number.

I did not invent the idea that the digits describe the level of known precision.  This is standard practice, taught explicitly in high school level chemistry and physics classes, but used in the real world every day by carpenters, plumbers, auto mechanics, farmers, etc.  I was not lecturing about something new, just leaving a friendly reminder for that which the other poster already knew.  

I don't care what bogus rules anyone chooses to insist on. If a particular field chooses to standardise a way of practising, that's up to them. The world at large is allowed to make their best estimates without being shackled by silly rules that would force them to make estimates that they expect to be further from the true figure.

If I say the time is about a quarter past noon, that means something very different from me saying the time is 12:14.07.  

Indeed. But if I'm on the way somewhere and I expect to be there in four minutes, I'll say so. I won't round up to 5, simply because I cannot guarantee that I will DEFINITELY be there within a range of 3 minutes 30 to 4 minutes thirty. I'll say four because that's my best estimate how long I expect to take. I'd rather say 4 minutes, if I may prove to take only three minutes, than say five and then find that I actually got there two minutes ahead. By saying four when I sincerely expect around four, I reduce the likelihood of being quite so far off the mark as if I say five due to a stupid rule. I will make what I considered my closest guess. If I wanted to define a range of certainty I'd do so. But anyone who assumes certainty of between 3.30 to 4.30 has been implied is guilty of false assumption. What I've said is that my best sincere guess is four minutes- not five! I'm not going to introduce a significantly larger percentage of expected error, just off on the off-chance that I should stray to 4 minutes thirty one seconds. Rules for educated estimates and rules for rounding off of actual measured figures are not one and the same thing!!! It's plain idiotic to work that way.

You may do as you please, but you can forget taking a pedantic tone and preaching to others about how they choose to operate. You do as you please, but it's not your place to impose artificial rules on anybody else, buddy.

You can heckle the flippantly introduced 3.51 if you like- but perhaps you'd like to deal with the primary issue of the 3.50 estimate (in a situation where I'm SURE that it's closer to 3.50 than 3 or 4, yet cannot say that I'm within five pence)? That situation reveals the sheer stupidity of the rules you are trying to impose. The system literally forces me to make a significantly more inaccurate estimate than my sincere one- all for the sake of a completely irrational set of rules that do not actually exist in any innate form.


Perhaps you stand around at guess the number of sweets competitions ordering people not to take guesses that are any more precise than the number of hundreds, but I'd personally encourage people to choose whatever number they personally feel is closest to the precise number of sweets in the jar- whether they can be certain that their chosen figure is correct to within half a sweet on either side, or not.

[nyiregyhazi]

By the way, there's a particularly stupid thing about your supposedly necessary system of using rounded units, regarding times (which are typically seen in five minute slots). If it's definitely 3.56.29, the estimate given by someone who expects to take around six minutes would be defined solely according to whether you say what time you will arrive or how long you expect. If forced to say five minutes, you would actually be expecting to arrive nearly two and a half minutes after four but suggesting an arrival of a minute earlier than that. But if giving a figure based on the estimated time of arrival, you'd be forced to round back to four (based on commonly rounded units of time). So you completely screw up the estimates (possibly falsely suggesting as much as 40 percent reduction in the actual journey time, after rounding creates a totally implausible figure). There are two totally different estimates, defined solely by an arbitrary viewpoint, both of which fall notably short of the actual time at which the person sincerely expects to be likely to arrive.

This kind of system is really nonsense. What's better- saying you expect around a six minute journey or giving a time that implies you actually might expect to be there as soon as three minutes and thirty one seconds (which you certainly won't)? This is what freedom of speech is for.

[silverwoodpianos]

Well,

Here is what I wrote. Read it again.  I used both estimate figures in the original posting so there is nothing to interpret;

At modern pitch requirement of A440 the strings and wire are pulled to approximately 66% of their tensile strength, so if one breaks it is not because of negligent work technique it is because the wire is damaged or has a weak spot.
 If strings or wire break at 2/3 of its tensile strength then it should not have been in the piano in the first place.

Now for the rest of this? How about some more estimates??

 I would estimate that our friend nyiregyhazi is about 50% pissed off and 100% irritated at the nonsense propagated by another poster.

Along with the pedantic nature of the posting from the OP following mine the attempted lecture within is complete nonsense. I would agree with nyiregyhazi on that point.

I would estimate that the OP has 0% knowledge of wire, held at tension over a wooden structure, which is revealed in the posting. As a technician of 41 years this is the usual argumentative response I have experienced online from those who have little technical knowledge.

While this is unfortunate it is, after all, expected.

And for myself I am 100% amused that two members spend time bickering over interpretations of statements made by a third party.

The wire broke. Put a new piece in. Tune it up. Play the damn thing.

The end.

[timothy42b]

All strings are 2/3rds stressed?  Seems like you would rarely break one.

Also seems like there must be a good bit of variation in the tension, if strings of similar diameter are tuned to different pitches.

And, many pianos "cannot be brought up to 440 without breaking strings."  At least, so I've been told by tuners.

So here's a snip from another forum frequented by silverwoodpianos:

In answering your question about string breakage, let me provide some context. When I talk about the %PBL or percentage of Practical Breaking Load, I am not referring directly to breaking percentage as we usually understand it. The %PBL is actually about 25% less than the breaking percentage. I think that Stephen Paulello came up with this measure, as a way to conservatively scale a piano. .

The general protocol for good scaling using %PBL as the primary value is as follows:

The stress rate for the core wire in the bass should ideally be between 50 and 55%

The stress rate for plain wire should be
50% for first plain wire at the break
to a maximum of 60% at A4
65% at A5
70% at A6
75% at A7
80% for F8

These notes are from Paulello's website

That may seem high until you realize that we are talking about %PBL.

The whole idea of hybrid wire scaling, which is what we have been talking about, is that that there is a "Goldilocks" zone for piano wire to give its very best sound, roughly in a 45 to 60 %PBL range.

For many pianos we would use the M type Paulello wire somewhere above note 40 to 50ish. The M type is equivalent to Mapes or Roslau wire. The Steinway B scale I did had the same wire sizes from note 40 up, using M type wire. The first four notes after the break were type 1, the rest to 30 type O.

Generally speaking, where we are substituting a type 1 or type O wire for M type, we are doing so to get the %PBL UP into the Goldilocks zone. For example, F21 on the B yields 30.26 %PBL with M type wire, 36.51 %PBL with O type, and 47.69 %PBL with type 1. And making that type 1 substitution for type M is an audible and very worthy improvement. But it is still within very safe margins of breaking percentages.

   

[timothy42b]

Now, when a hammer strikes a string, what is the increase in tension? 

I'm sure nyz and silverwood know, maybe they'll share it. 

[nyiregyhazi]

All strings are 2/3rds stressed?  Seems like you would rarely break one.

Also seems like there must be a good bit of variation in the tension, if strings of similar diameter are tuned to different pitches.

And, many pianos "cannot be brought up to 440 without breaking strings."  At least, so I've been told by tuners.

So here's a snip from another forum frequented by silverwoodpianos:
   

There's plenty of variance in incomes too. Does that mean we must ban anyone who speaks of average earnings from doing so without giving the range of the world's lowest and highest earners? No. Because it's perfectly valid to give an approximate figure of the average.

[timothy42b]

There's plenty of variance in incomes too.

Silverwood did not say there was variation in strings. 

There may not even be, for him.  It's possible he chooses string diameters such that he can give them all the same stress.

But if in fact strings do vary, then it's reasonable to ask the question.  Are all strings at 66.0% breaking stress?  Or are some at 30%, some 50%, some maybe 99%?  What is the variation?   

And it's also reasonable to ask how much is the increase from playing.  Tuners break strings, I've seen it myself on our church piano.  F2 went on an upright, last time it was tuned.  But I've seen churches where bass strings break every week or so. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Silverwood did not say there was variation in strings.  

There may not even be, for him.  It's possible he chooses string diameters such that he can give them all the same stress.

But if in fact strings do vary, then it's reasonable to ask the question.  Are all strings at 66.0% breaking stress?  Or are some at 30%, some 50%, some maybe 99%?  What is the variation?  

And it's also reasonable to ask how much is the increase from playing.  Tuners break strings, I've seen it myself on our church piano.  F2 went on an upright, last time it was tuned.  But I've seen churches where bass strings break every week or so.  

When I say that a worker in Britain would be expected to earn around x pounds per year, I don't feel compelled to also list the highest and lowest earnings in the country or to make a point of stating that not every worker actually earns x pounds, owing to variation. If you could not deduce that either of these was an estimated average (from such strong context) then by all means ask, but you don't get to order everyone to abide by your way of doing estimates. If you wanted more information than an estimated average, you were free to ask- which would have made far more sense than giving a silly lecture in which you preached a completely fallacious rationale and tried to impose it upon the poster.

[timothy42b]

When I say that a worker in Britain would be expected to earn around x pounds per year, I don't feel compelled to also list the highest and lowest earnings in the country or to make a point of stating that not every worker actually earns x pounds, owing to variation.

No, of course you don't, because you have focused on winning an argument at all costs, and have zero interest in why a string breaks.

I have become more curious during the course of this thread.  Silverwood is a respected tuner/technician, and while I disagree with him about significant digits I do respect his knowledge of piano mechanics and hope he'll continue here.

One interesting thing is that when playing, most commonly the bass strings break.  (I don't know what breaks when tuning)  Why is that, when they are at the least relative tension?  Is it like breaking racketballs? 

[nyiregyhazi]

No, of course you don't, because you have focused on winning an argument at all costs, and have zero interest in why a string breaks.

I have become more curious during the course of this thread.  Silverwood is a respected tuner/technician, and while I disagree with him about significant digits I do respect his knowledge of piano mechanics and hope he'll continue here.

One interesting thing is that when playing, most commonly the bass strings break.  (I don't know what breaks when tuning)  Why is that, when they are at the least relative tension?  Is it like breaking racketballs?  

Well, here's a theory. Maybe if next time you try politely asking for further information (rather than giving a lecture, in which you try to assert that the fallacy that it's not acceptable either to give an averaged figure or to make sincere estimates, without first reducing their probability of accuracy by rounding them to a figure which is defined by nothing more than the abitrary viewpoint of mathematics in base 10), perhaps you'll be more likely to get a meaningful answer?

[paul678]

There is always a slight risk that a piano string will break during a
tuning, especially if the piano is old. Strings break due to factory
(or rebuilding) issues, age, metal fatigue, corrosion or oxidation,
and other factors that have nothing to do with the tuning process
directly - though tuning itself may push an already weak string over
the edge.

When it does happen, I charge my customer for the string at least,
 and sometimes for the labor, but it usually comes out to about $20 or so.

If the piano is fairly new, then it ok to put a brand new one in.

But in an older instrument, if the string breaks near the tuning pin, then
it's preferable to splice the string with rounded nose pliers, because a brand
new string will sound too different from the other strings, even though it
technically sounds better.

It's probably placebo effect if you notice any difference in your case.  As others
have mentioned, the string with stretch for a while.

Good Luck to you.

[pristinepiano]

To answer the OP's question, a broken string can sometimes damage the piano, but rarely does.  The wire can whip by the cabinet, the soundboard or painted metal plate and put a small scratch in it.  Superficial/cosmetic damage at most, and like I mentioned, it only happens rarely.  

The piano's design scaling, does differ between pianos but the manufacturers strive to keep the tensions within a zone of breaking strength % and relative to the available guages of wire they have.  Within these paramaters they try to keep string tensions as uniform as possible to the extents of the keyboard so that the bridge/sound board are not unevenly stressed...this keeps the instrument structurally sound over the years and also keeps the piano better in tune with itself as the seasons/enviroment change during the year.  Tier I pianos are generally better scaled than cheaper instruments and will not have the types of issues related to poor scale design and implimentation.

The strings can break for numerous reasons.  Hard playing, rust/pitting/excessive age/ Large adjustments in pitch, human error in tuning.  Good experienced tuners very very rarely break strings due to being on the wrong pin;for new or lesser experienced tuners, it does happen. Occasionally I will get a really loose tuning ping and when I crank on the tuning hammer it will jump quite sharp, broke a string like that a few years back, was honest and replaced it at my cost.   Measures can be taken to reduce the likelyhood of breakage on pitch raises and old pianos. The strings can get lubricated with CLP at their bearing points to help break rust free. The tuner should ease the string flat first to break the rust bond, before raising to target pitch, large pitch raises can and often should be done in steps, rather than all at once.  String splices do work nicely if its broken on the non speaking length...it should really only be done on the wound strings...no reason for a technician to not have unwound string in the proper guage available.  Bass/tenor strings which break and are a pair/unison should ideally be changed out as a pair, its rare to get a nice match on inharmonicity with and old and new string on a unison....even rarer if using a universal spare bass string.

Sometimes poorer quality instruments will have a poor scaling choice for a particular string and these are more susceptable to breakage and may even have issues with proper tone.  A good technician or string maker (for wound strings) will substitute an upgraded string which may improve the sound and longevity of the string...there are charts and compurer programs which are used to determine this.

When a new string is put on, there will be a period of time where it adjusts/conforms itelf to its newly formed seating position on all its bearing points and hitch pin/tuning pin.  It will tend to go out of tune rather quickly compared to the other strings.  This is incorrectly called "string stretch"....the string will only stretch to deformity if it exceeds its Youngs Modulus of Elasticity.  They are not pulled to that extent of tension.  Some techs will bend the hitch pin turn, lay out the string line, seat them on the bridge and form tight coils on the tuning pin better than others...the string will stay in better tune because of this for the first year or so until they fully stabilize. If the string replacement is poorly done, the string can, and will drop pitch more quickly because it will eventually fit and conform itself to its proper position...but this takes time.  You get what you pay for with a tech, rarely pays to go cheap on them.