[CAUT] WAPIN Installation

[Tim Coates]

Jim,

You lack history of the testing done.  All that you state as the "best 
testing method" (not sure if those are your exact words) has been done. 
   Baldwin did it about ten years ago.  It would be nice if Baldwin's R 
&R department existed as it once did and they would be willing to share 
their information and methodology.   It would also of been nice if 
Baldwin had not been going through extreme financial difficulties at 
the time the testing was done, because there was strong interest in 
Wapin.  But their higher up execs had more important matters at hand.  
For now what Wapin Company got out of it was one of our best 
installers.  The floor technician who prepped the piano for sale at the 
Baldwin Factory Store was highly impressed.  As I said he is now one of 
our best installers and I call him for advice from time to time.  We 
know the every other note test has no place in testing despite the on 
going insistence by technicians who have no knowledge of how the bridge 
system works.

You lack knowledge of  the installation methods.  There are several.  
But the method used for the current comparisons is what is called the 
"retrofit".  The strings are not removed from the piano.  You made 
statements that assume installation is done by restringing.   If you 
want more details I can let you know when an installation seminar is 
close to you, but for now here is the overview:  lower the tension, 
pull the front pins, move strings out of the way, plug the holes, drill 
the perpendicular holes,  drive the new pins, mark the trapping pin 
location, drill the trapping pin location, drive the trapping pins, put 
strings back into position, raise the tension.  Obviously there is more 
to it than that, such as some tools designed by us to help with the 
process.  But the piano does not need to be restrung.  You may not 
think this is the best method to test a piano, but others who are more 
learned than either of us don't seem to be bothered by it.

Jim, I know you mean well.  I didn't think Otto's comments were 
directed at you.  And I have talked with Michael Wathen several times 
about your studies.  He always admires your work.  He has told me you 
two have talked.

I agree with Michael Wathen's statements about the piano industry.   
And I think they have a place on this list.  All is not well in the 
piano industry.  I think we have a responsibility to talk about it.

Tim Coates






I

On Nov 6, 2006, at 11:41 AM, James Ellis wrote:

> In his November 4 post, Tim Coates said that my post of the same date 
> was
> interesting, but that I lacked history and information about the 
> process.
> How is that so?  Exactly what is it that I am lacking, Tim?
>
> Pursuant to Tim's post of November 5, I looked up the "Scientific 
> Data" on
> the WAPIN web site.  Six spectrum plots were shown, two each of a 
> rebuilt
> 1929 Steinway D with WAPIN bridge, two of an original 1984 D without 
> the
> WAPIN, and two of a Kawai concert grand.  A linear and a logarithmic 
> plot
> of the spectrum of note D3 of each piano was shown.  I have some 
> questions
> regarding those plots.
>
> 1. Why was only one unison (D3) used for those studies/illustrations?
>
> 2. The plots of the 1984 D show what I would consider to be a typical
> spectrum of a concert grand when a microphone is placed 11 inches 
> above the
> damper of F#4.  However, those of the 1929 with the WAPIN showed an
> abnormally sharp drop in the amplitude of the second and third 
> partials of
> the D3 test note.  Furthermore, the 17th and 38th partials appear to 
> be of
> the same amplitude, and there is an increase of what appears to be 
> about 30
> dB from partials 33 to 38 (poor detail prevents accurate reading).  
> These
> are tones that are well above the fundamental of the highest note of 
> the
> piano.  The Fletcher Munson curves (included) show the auditory 
> response of
> the human ear peaking around 4-kHz.  When the Fletcher Munson curves 
> are
> applied to this spectrum, the subjective result is that overtones of D3
> that are well above the highest note on the piano will sound
> disproportionately loud to the ear.  How can this be considered "Too 
> good
> to be true", as was suggested on the web site?  Could this have had
> anything to do with the voicing of the hammer of that particular unison
> when that recording was made, or some other anomaly?
>
> 3. How does this relate to any change in the tone and/or decay rate of
> unisons in the fifth octave and above?
>
> COMMENT:  Then I examined the 1929 Wapinized D in Cincinnati and 
> compared
> it with the 1984 a few years ago, I did like the 1929 better.  The
> sustaining quality in the upper octaves did sound better to me, and I 
> said
> so to Michael Wathen at the time.  However, I could not determine if 
> the
> difference were because of the WAPIN, of simply a result of the total
> rebuilding the piano had been given.  I did not notice the peculiar
> characteristic in note D3 that shows up in the web site spectrums.
>
> COMMENT:  The questions that some of us have recently reased have been 
> good
> questions, neither for nor against the WAPIN, but merely asking for 
> more
> scientifically acceptable data than those that have been presented.  I 
> just
> read Otto Keyes November 5 post.  His reference to posts such as mine 
> as
> "authority of ignorance" and "pigeon pooh" is off limits, does not 
> belong
> on this list, and I resent it.
>
> COMMENT:  Michael Wathen's disparaging remarks about the piano 
> industry are
> not very well received either, nor was I talking about subjective 
> opinions.
>  I was talking about data that are supposed to show that the Wapin 
> either
> does or does not make a difference - data that in my opinion, show 
> neither,
> and leave the question wide open.
>
> Sincerely, Jim Ellis
>
>
>
>
>