Hammer Shanks

[fssturm@unm.edu]

Hi Jim,
   I wish you would step back and take a deep breath. This is not a war, it is a 
free-ranging discussion. Nobody is required to prove anything, or to follow any 
rules. We are all colleagues, trying to learn what we can, and contribute what 
we can according to our own lights. And we hope to do so in a collegial manner, 
trying to avoid giving _or taking_ offense. A few comments interspersed below:

Quoting James Ellis <claviers@nxs.net>:

> Dear Colleagues:
> 
> This discussion of hammer shanks has really made the rounds.  When
> it
> started, the ides was that hex (sic) (octagonal) shanks sounded
> better
> because they were stiffer. 

Not true. Joe Goss opined that a non-round shank might have less weight per 
stiffness. (And made a couple slips as to measurement and geometry, which he 
later corrected). I think that was where that part of the discussion started. I 
suppose various people have opinions as to what sounds better, but I don't 
recall any strong advocacy of octagonal (or hex) in that regard. Just a couple of 
tentative opinions.

> I showed that they are not stiffer, in
> fact,
> not as stiff as some round ones that are currently on the market. 

Nope, you showed that a tapered round shank, with a thicker beginning area, 
had less deflection under load than a parallel octagonal shank with a thinner 
beginning area (beginning area being the area around the knuckle). What you 
presented was interesting, but, for me, raised more questions than it answered. I 
don't know yet whether Joe Goss' suggestion had any merit. Your experiment 
didn't really help in that regard, because it didn't control the variables 
adequately. It did address two of the most commonly used and available parts, 
which certainly made it useful information. 

> The
> discussion then did an about face, and said that thinned shanks
> sounded
> better because they are not as stiff.  Now, the saying is that they
> make a
> difference in the tone, or that they produce more fundamental
> partials.  Do
> they really?  Someone show me that this is so.  Has anyone done an
> analysis
> to show this, or is it just someone's opinion?  I would really like
> to
> know.  Does anyone have a spectrum analysis?  Does anyone have a
> recording
> demonstrating this?  If so, let's see it.  Let's hear it.  If this is
> true,
> I would like to know it, and then I can go to work to see if I can
> figure
> out why it is.  Someone says, "why" does not matter.  All that
> matters is
> that it does it.  No, that's not enough.  We need to know why.  

Well, one person on the list opined that thinned shanks generally gave better 
tonal results. He claimed to have done some testing (objective, as far as it went), 
and to have listened (subjectively). He is someone whose opinion I respect, so I, 
for one, will store that bit of data in the recesses of my dusty brain in hopes it 
might be useful some day. I doubt anyone could _prove_ it to me beyond any 
doubt, no matter how many tests were done, or how much figuring out was 
spouted. I'd certainly love to see experimental results along those lines, but I've 
seen too many things proven and disproven over the years to believe there are 
many cut and dried answers where something as complex as a piano is 
concerned. Shank thinning is another variable that many manufacturers have 
used over the years. Which is great. I am all in favor of diversity of opinion, 
because it leads to diversity of results. I think variety of tone is one of the 
hallmarks of excellence in pianos (speaking as a performer). I don't want every 
piano to sound alike.

> If
> there is
> one thing wrong with this profession, it is that there is too much
> guess-work.

I dunno. I think that there are many areas of piano work where pure subjective 
experience serves us better than proven theory. Most of us have a lot of notions 
of why a certain operation will achieve a certain result. Often the notions make 
no scientific sense whatever, but that doesn't lessen their potential value as a 
psychological tool. You mentioned piano teachers talking about "round tone" 
being produced by the "round part of the finger," along with another example or 
two of what you feel, I guess, to be ridiculous superstition. As a performing 
pianist, I have to say that, while I have generally shared your scorn of such 
statements, I have also seen many instances of very impressive results from 
such conveyed notions. The pianist who is trying to think about how much 
velocity to impart to this finger versus that one, in order to make a crescendo, 
will never get very far. Imagery will probably lead to better results than facts in 
teaching artistic performers whether or not it makes physical sense (depending 
on the student, of course). Artistic performance is largely the result of feedback 
loops developed through hours and hours of varied practice, where finally the 
imagination asks for a sound, and the body produces it, not knowing how. In the 
final analysis, the performer has learned how to make a complex series of 
sounds by means of extraordinarily complex physical motions through endless 
experimentation. 
   There may have been some scientific or pseudo-scientific input at some point. 
Or maybe not. I remember being shocked when a piano prof with 25 years 
teaching experience walked into the studio when I had the action out, and told 
me she had never seen that before. All she knew about the piano came from the 
front of the piano, the tops of the keys. But she was a tremendous performer and 
teacher. 
   I'm all for experimentation, and trying to quantify things and confirm theories. 
But I think that the best piano technicians are usually artists just like musicians - 
they have learned much of the finest area of their craft through experimentation 
and subjective judgment.
> 
> Sincerely, Jim Ellis
> 

Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico