Hi, At 07:55 PM 10/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: >>Hi Fred, > > 4gms of friction seems to be the optimum for tone > production, as it keeps the knuckle firmly in contact with the > balancier. I usually demonstrate the effects of friction in my Prelude > to Voicing classes. There is usually a lot of slack jawed experienced > techs, at the end of the demonstration. > >Regards Roger. There is an exceptional example of the effects what I think Roger demonstrates on CD 1 of the Brahms works for solo piano, recorded by Julius Katchen, released (most recently) on London as 430.053-2. In the exposition of the Theme of the Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel, Op. 24, one can hear two notes that are pinned just sufficiently loosely that the tone loses focus from time to time. At some dynamics, the notes are quite clear; at others, there is an unmistakable lack of precision (for lack of a better term) in the initial attack envelope of the sound. Under those certain conditions, the notes in question stand out in stark relief to their neighbors on an otherwise marvelously prepared and recorded instrument. (Nope, no perfect pitch, and I've never taken the time to track them down with a score.) There are numerous other examples. This one happens to stand out because of the clarity of contrast between immediately adjacent notes. In many other recordings the quality of the sound is so garbled that it is more difficult to discern exactly what might be going on. This set of Katchen recordings happens to have been done on a Bluthner. To hear the same kind of symptom on an S&S, you'll need to look for recordings made between (roughly) 1960 and 1980 (or so). The reason for this is that, prior to 1960, recording engineers generally more interested in what a piano actually sounded like out in a concert hall than under the lid; so, these kinds of issues were not picked up as readily (speaks to other voicing issues, but that is another treatise). By 1980 and after, S&S had started divesting itself of the older, more recorded C&A stock; and the newer instruments had other problems (relatively speaking) which, in concert with the gradual shift to the mike-on-the-string school of recording, made diagnosis more difficult (also another treatise). That being said, look for later recordings by (sadly) Rudolf Serkin (later Beethoven sonatas), some middle Ashkenazy, much of the Beaux Arts Trio (no fault of Menachem Pressler) from that period...a few others, but those are the ones that come to mind at the moment. Another interesting example would also be the Boesendorfer used by Oscar Peterson on the Tracks album. For some reason, the problems are more audible on the original vinyl than on the CD - I suspect too much digital clean up work during "remastering", the piano also is not as "present"...this latter is interesting, particularly since Peterson himself told me that the recording was made using 8 U-87 Neumann microphones fed directly into a Studer 8 track console and immediately to a 1" Studer 8 track recorder, with the mix done directly from there to the stereo master, also on a Studer 1" machine - no equalization used at any point in the chain on the original recording. On the vinyl , the piano simply leaps out of the speakers - as if it were in the room with you. On the CD, there is a noticeable "sound stage", and resultant distance, present....sigh. Horace >>Hi Jim, >> Thanks for your report on Eric's comments. Very interesting and useful. >> I don't think the low friction has anything to do with heavier >> hammers. To the >>best of my knowledge, the increase in hammer weight was addressed with >>design changes - particularly change in knuckle placement with resultant >>increase in dip, but I believe there were a few other, more subtle changes as >>well. I've had more of a tendency to suspect that the statement "as long >>as the >>center is firm, it doesn't matter how much friction there is" had more to >>do with >>setting limits on warrantee liability. To put it crassly, "If you want >>more friction (for >>whatever reason), that's fine, but Steinway isn't going to pay." 2 grams has >>always been my absolute bottom limit, and 1 seems awfully low. But I'm >>willing >>to suspend disbelief to a certain extent. >> The friction in a hammer flange doesn't transfer directly >> (numerically) to >>downweight at all, and certainly doesn't multiply. Hammerflange friction is >>usually a fairly small portion of overall friction, which is a small >>portion of down >>weight. The largest portion of action friction is knuckle to rep >>lever/jack, then >>wippen cushion to capstan and keybushing to keypin. Action center friction is >>generally the smallest portion. Unless action centers are nearly frozen, >>their >>contribution to measured DW (or friction calculated from DW and UW) is well >>within 5 grams. As Don Mannino noted in an earlier post, he finds increasing >>hammershank center friction from zero to (I think it was) 4 grams >>increases DW >>by only 1.5 grams, which sounds about right. >>Regards, >>Fred Sturm >>University of New Mexico >>_______________________________________________ >>caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > > >_______________________________________________ >caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC