Dave Porritt has and interesting observation that I have been wondering about while following this subject. Does a rubber mute absorb energy from a hammer blow, or does it transform the muted string(s) into immovable objects so that *all* of the hammer energy goes into the unmuted string(s)? If we make an assumption that a _rubber_ mute will not take on hammer energy and a _felt_ mute, however, will absorb the energy - taking energy away from the unmuted string(s) - maybe there is a measurable difference. Maybe the pitch level (not to mention energy output) of the individual strings vs. the whole unison can be measured. Has anyone tried these tests with both kinds of mutes? I use felt mutes made of hammer head material, cut and shaped appropriately. Of course, if the above assumption is not true, there is always the <Delete> button up there..... Joel Rappaport David Porritt wrote: > > --snip > > > Dean observed that a given "hammer blow strength" might generate > > greater amplitude in a single string with the other two muted compared to > > the amplitude of all three strings excited by an equal blow - that more of > > the force of the blow would be focused on one string, and that this might > > account for the pitch difference between single and three string unisons. I > > think that is the most satisfctory explanation I have heard, but I don't see > > why the SAT wouldn't pick it up. > > --snip > > The hammer is still striking 3 strings even when 2 are muted. The energy > is going in to all the strings, it's just that the energy from two of > them is being dissipated by the mute. I really think the 1 singing > string doesn't get any more energy in either case. > > dave > > _______________________________________________ > > David M. Porritt, RPT > Meadows School of the Arts > Southern Methodist University > Dallas, Texas > _______________________________________________
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC