Hello Ric. I agree totally on what you say here. I ended up finding that impact noise control (shanks, punchings and voicing) together with accurate strike point distance can make or destroy the magic (sorry for the word) of a piano sound. Do you think there is a reason to believe that more rigid shanks are desirable ? Of course, one can not consider this parameter apart from all the others. But yet... Best regards. Stéphane Collin. ----- Original Message ----- From: "RicB" <ricb at pianostemmer.no> To: <pianotech at ptg.org> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 6:02 PM Subject: Scruffing -was - Over-Strike vs Under-Strike > Hi Marcel > > It strikes me that the whole scope of impact noises is probably one of the > most overlooked and underestimated bits of what the overall sound of the > instrument ends up being. We have this tendency to focus on the sound the > strings make and get all hung up in that. To the point that many find it > down right difficult if not impossible to understand how one or another of > the many impact noises actually can influence piano tone. But they do... > big time. Going to a more rigid shank will of course have a price. I'm > not saying you cant make it work... I'm just saying you probably cant just > count on it being a good thing without further ado. > > Cheers > > RicB > > > I think there has to be some kink of balance. I remember old uprights > with cedar shanks in the treble section. When I replaced some of these > broken shanks with maple ones, the tone would get ugly. Mind you these > hammers were tapered a lot and were very light, but there must be a > reason why the cedar shanks produced such a good tone compared with > maple ones. > > There is so much that happens when the hammer hit the strings that we > don't know. It's a very complex system and we only can try different > things, but going to just a more rigid shank might not solve all our > problems. > > Marcel Carey, RPT > Sherbrooke, QC > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC