Whipping

[John Delacour]

At 5:51 PM -0500 12/1/01, BobDavis88@AOL.COM wrote:
>In a message dated 12/01/2001 2:15:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>JD@Pianomaker.co.uk writes:
>
>>  What DOES make a difference, however, is whipping the bottom ends.
>
>What difference, and why?

I'm letting myself in for it here so I'll start off by admitting that 
the why of it is not clear to me and I've never seen an explanation. 
One day next year this is one of a lot of acoustical questions I hope 
to work at with a nearby university faculty.

The best way to describe the effect is that it clarifies the tone and 
improves the attack -- it puts bones in the string.  Speaking 
slightly more technically, it improves the harmonic relationships and 
discourages wild overtones.  Probably the added weight near the 
soundboard bridge forces the string to favour the more desirable 
overtones.  It must also have some effect on the inharmonicity of the 
string.  All this is just intutition.

I've mentioned this before and emphasized that it's not a fad of mine 
but the regular practice of Steinway, Bechstein, Blüthner, Erard and 
scores of German makers.  There is no ergonomic reason for a 
stringmaker to whip the ends, though it's very little more bother, so 
these makers had good reason for continuing the practice.  In the 
case of Steinway whipping however, the extra work involved is 
considerable, though I've never detected an audible difference 
between the two methods.  Electronic listening would probably show a 
slight difference, since if anything the Steinway method has a 
greater stiffening effect on the whipped portion.

I normally cut out the whipping at the transition to singles, but for 
special pianos and my own I use another method to add weight at the 
same point, again with good results.  This involves running an inch 
or so of undercover close-wound over part of the flattening before 
spinning on the top cover.

JD