[CAUT] Voicing method/analogy

[David Love]

Yes and moreover, hammer selection (heavy, light, dense, not dense) will
depend on soundboard response (primarily), scale design (secondarily-but not
far behind).  An older soundboard prone to whump and whine type of tone will
likely be much better off with a lighter and probably softer hammer than a
heavier one and harder one-personal taste notwithstanding.  Hammer choice
for a suitable tonal match first, action ratio to accommodate hammer choice
second, voicing to smooth the bumps third.  

 

David Love
davidlovepianos at comcast.net
www.davidlovepianos.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Solliday
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 12:01 PM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Voicing method/analogy

 

Ric, 

All you say is on the way as long as we stay focused on the fact that
heavier hammers require a lower action Ratio and lighter hammers require a
higher one. Hence Ed M's actions worked best with a 15.65mm knuckle. I'm
sure you know this I just wanted to extrapolate alittle, maybe even
clarify...

Chris Solliday

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Richard Brekne <mailto:ricb at pianostemmer.no>  

To: caut at ptg.org 

Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:01 PM

Subject: [CAUT] Voicing method/analogy

 

In principle this is sound reasoning as far as it goes. It does not take
into consideration however the physical limitations imposed on hammer
velocity for a given hammer mass in the context of the system we call the
action. Nor does it take into consideration things like increased flexing of
the shank, the requirements for counterbalancing both in static and dynamics
senses. All else being equal... this would work just as well as Ed McMorrows
Light Hammer philosophy.  In his case.. the lack of weight would be
compensated by the increased velocity yeilding the same nett impact
force.... velocity times mass.  If it was just as simple as this... then any
combination of velocity times mass that equaled any other given combination
would yeild the same force on whatever stopping force was encountered. But
as we know... it isnt.

Not to say that to some degree one can employ these ideas to achieve some
resultant effect... but I dont really think these have been quantified
really yet.  Clearly, IMHE in anycase.... an equal velocity times mass given
to significantly different hammer masses will not yeild the same tonal
affects no matter what voicing is done.... but just what exactly are all the
contributing causes to the resultant differences are not, I think, known at
this point... only guessed at.

I find folks attempting to use hammer weights that are equivalants of what
might be called 3/4 over load Strike Weights... ala Stanwood... i.e. a level
above his smart chart hammers.  Bass SW's starting at 15 grams....
Personally I find this kind of thing .... well untenable in the end.  Just
as much so as I find the extreme light hammers proposed by McMorrow (whome I
have great respect for as I do Stanwood).  Using Stanwoods gauge again... I
see a max SW curve of perhaps 1/2 tops and a minimum of perhaps 1/4 medium
as in the useble range for about 99.8% of anything I can possibly imagine as
acceptable. Outside of these mass levels you run into all manner of other
considerations that need to be delt with... all yeilding in the end what is
what I believe all the data out there tells us will not be met with
acceptance in the world of pianists. There are always the exceptions...
Horowitz comes to mind...  

I just took a 20 year old Steinway D that had had a hammer change done a few
years back without regard to key leading. The Strikeweight Curve was fairly
even and ended up a pretty smoothed out 1/4 top.  Ratio (ala  Stanwood) of
5.7 +.... and I balance the keys to just slightly above his recommended
maximums to end up with a 36 gram BW.  The pianist... one of todays
Rubenstein types.... simply loved the touch.  New bushings and polished key
pins of course helped as well...   I think the most important thing to
remember in voicing using hammer mass as a tool.... is to keep things in
reasonable ball parks. No one is going to hit a 580 foot home run.

Just some thoughts from the other side of the pond

Cheers
RicB


     It is well established that adding weight to a hammer changes the tone.
Flexibility or springiness of the material added is also a factor.
Analogy:
A student railroad engineer was instructed to bring a 100 car train to a
precision stop.  Immediately after doing so, there came a jolt, and the
locomotives were pushed well past the target before stopping again.  The
student was instructed that brakes should have been deployed to compress the
train prior to the stop.   Stopping with a stretched train allowed the rear
of the train to still be moving forward after the front had stopped so when
the "slack ran in" the front was pushed forward.

Consider a piano hammer as a train, the strike point being the locomotive,
and the tail the rear cars.  A hard hammer with no spring is like a
compressed train, where the tail stops at the same time as the strike point.
In a soft hammer the weight of the tail is still moving upwards after the
strike point has stopped.   A factor in tone is from the type of stop made,
or how much "run in of slack" or "after push" occurs when strike point
stops. 

You can voice rock hard hammer heads by adding controlled flexible weight
appendages to create the optimum amount of springy "after push" or "run in
of slack".  Choose a glue or caulk which dries flexibly or springy and add
to the inside of the tail cove. Trim and shape it for weight and amount of
flex.   A pronounced blob of glue of a given amount will have more flex than
the same amount spread in a thin layer inside the tail cove.   This is a
viable voicing method to develop and use in your arsenal.

-Mike Jorgensen  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070527/aa6a0589/attachment.html