David, Jim, et al, First, David. Thanks for the comment about hoping students appreciate a dedicated teacher. The most convincing evidence for the value of Wapin, believe it or not, has nothing to do with science. The science is really an aside. There are over two hundred Wapin installations to date. Every one of them I have experienced produces a very distinct result not possible with rebuilding. I hear it every time. Initially I was the biggest skeptic. I clamored for others to give their opinions: "do you hear what I hear?". Yes, I remember Jim your visit to Cincinnati. And I remember your comments just have recalled them in the previous post. So, I have no desire at this point to produce or display scientific studies about Wapin. Anyone can accept or reject the claims as they see fit. That said I will talk about what I have learned since the beginning of my quest with Wapin. I will leave true scientific research to those who make it their profession. Maybe some graduate student will write a thesis someday. Let me just throw out one gem. Differential equation models show mathematically that the motion of a vibrating string depends on the boundary conditions. One boundary is the nearly fixed and rigid cast iron capo bar while the other boundary is the flexible bridge-soundboard system. The moving string will loose its energy overtime doing work (physics term) on the system. In a normal bridge system, there are two functions (boundary conditions) that reduce the energy in the string by doing work on them: the terminating pin at the bridge is one, and the other is the clamping of the string produced by the slant of the pin. Wapin removes one of the boundary conditions: that of the clamping and thus the energy required to perform this function is garnished and kept in the string a little longer. With this physical model we can theorize the Wapin decouples the string and probably does so slightly. Consider this. Most piano manufacturers that provide concert instruments for stage and performance venues will only keep those instruments on the public venue for an average of five years. After this, conventional wisdom says the piano has lost some of its luster. It may be an exceptional instrument in private venues but they want to keep their best foot forward for the public. I believe that this conventional wisdom arose experientially over many years. I also believe that they are right. But why is another question. Manufacturers go to considerable length and effort to make sure that every joint is fitted as well as possible. The belief is that a well fitted bridge-soundboard system will give the greatest tone production, projection, and sustain. What really happens over those five years is that the coupling grows stronger and stronger between the systems. Each system moves, deforms and forms seeking an equilibrium. Perhaps, after five years the various parts of the system start to become too strongly coupled. A strongly coupled system will move energy more easily between the systems. The energy in the upper portions of the piano will tend to dissipate too quickly. So quickly that much of the energy will leave the string before it can even set up a standing wave on the string and thus produce a harmonic tone. How does this stand up in practice? One year, at music hall in Cincinnati, Barry Douglas came to perform a Prokovief Piano Concerto with the Symphony. There were two C & A pianos one stage for use. He didn't really care for either. He complained and the Symphony allowed me to bring in the 1929 Steinway. The dealer reprepped his pianos and we moved ours to Music Hall. Douglas tried each piano and with very little deliberation picked the 1929 D over the two new pianos. He had no reservations and used again the second night. At Interlochen the year before last the same sort of thing occurred with Olga Kern. The Detroit dealer sent up a Steinway D C & A piano that they considered to be top notch. After giving the piano a try with the orchestra at rehearsal Olga voiced concerned that piano would not work that well in the outdoor venue and with no miking. She tried and decided to use a 1975 Baldwin SD-10 with Wapin over the New C & A Steinway. This scenario was repeated a few weeks ago in Sioux Falls when she decided to use a 1951 Steinway D with Wapin over a 1983 Steinway D. So much for stories. -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org]On Behalf Of David Skolnik Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 5:26 AM To: College and University Technicians Subject: Re: [CAUT] Wapin Installation at Brandon University Michael W- Thanks for the input and background, as well as the link to additional information. I think the point I made in my (next to) last post remains. What (some) technicians are looking for, I think, are both a collection of exhaustive data, which, if necessary, is interpreted sufficiently to be understood by reasonably intelligent reader, along with a thorough discussion of the physical phenomena generating the data. Without that, we remain in the realm of subjective (albeit collective) observation and speculation. I don't, in any way, mean to dismiss the claims made by you(s) or the observations reported by many, nor even to assume an aggressively skeptical posture, but I don't think it's fair, or reasonable to expect a community that has, at its heart, a strong scientific orientation, (can we still say 'orientation?) to suspend its methodological criteria. The single variable! Again, I look forward, both, to the "Birkett" process, as well as an opportunity I can avail myself of, to see the product and process. Brandon is not a possibility for me. Nevertheless, I hope it goes well. Lastly, I hope your students appreciate you. You seem to be quite a dedicated teacher. Best regards - David Skolnik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20061106/1f657b32/attachment.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC