[CAUT] Shank to Hammer weight spreadsheet

[Tim Coates]

Hi Alan,

I will do my best to describe my method.  In making the shank show  
its pitch my desire is to somewhat replicate the shank on the action  
rail.  That means being as consistent as possible in the way I hold  
the shank:  firmly on the flange hole just before the flange would  
stop its contact with the rail.  This provides a dampening affect on  
the flange, but allow the rest of the shank to show its pitch.   I  
like to use a wood surface to moderately tap the hammer end of the  
shank onto.  The same wood target or spot is used for all tapping.   
As you tap the shank several times you find it always gives the same  
pitch.  It takes some practice to make the same motion, but it feels  
like an artistic movement.

The first run through sorting the entire set creates two groups:  low  
and high.  The two groups are then sorted into two subgroups of low  
and high creating four groups.  The four groups are then sorted into  
eight groups.  Once you have them in eight groups of low to high the  
individual shanks within each group are sequenced, low to high.   The  
final test is to go through the entire set from low to high.  There  
should be very few changes made.   Sorting this way really opens up  
your ears for the final run through.

Tim Coates

On Feb 18, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Alan McCoy wrote:

> Tim,
>
> Could you describe how you sort shanks by sound? I've done vertical  
> shanks
> that way for a long time by just dropping them on the table and  
> listening.
> Grand shanks, though, are "contaminated" by the flange connection, so
> dropping them doesn't necessarily give a good "plink" or "plonk." I  
> suppose
> by holding the flange and letting the shank fall onto the table,  
> you'll get
> a comparable "plink."
>
> Alan
>
>
> -- Alan McCoy, RPT
> Eastern Washington University
> amccoy at mail.ewu.edu
> 509-359-4627
>
>
>> From: Tim Coates <tcoates1 at sio.midco.net>
>> Reply-To: "College and University Technicians <caut at ptg.org>"  
>> <caut at ptg.org>
>> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:55:24 -0600
>> To: "College and University Technicians <caut at ptg.org>"  
>> <caut at ptg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Shank to Hammer weight spreadsheet
>>
>> Keith,
>>
>> Listening and sequencing the shanks is very fast if done correctly.
>> I don't agree with Grotian's sequencing method.  I've been sorting
>> low pitches to the bass end and high pitches to the top for over
>> twenty years.  One basic principle I follow is a low pitched knock
>> associated with a movement within the piano reduces power.  It is one
>> of the main reasons I change front rail felt punchings.  Hard felt
>> punchings create a low knock that robs power from the sound.   I find
>> the same to be true with the pitch of the shanks.
>>
>> But as I have said before:  to each his own.  Grotian does it their
>> way and that's fine.  I know what works for me.
>>
>> Tim Coates
>>
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2008, at 8:07 PM, Keith Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> My question is, if you are weighing the whole shank and flange, how
>>> do you know the distribution of the difference in weight? If 90% of
>>> the weight difference is from the knuckle through the flange, the
>>> SW wouldn't change much and so the presumed evening out of the
>>> weights is not there. The distribution of the mass could vary from
>>> shank to shank at all the different weights.
>>>
>>> I like the idea of listening to the sound of the shanks. A thinner
>>> light shank should produce a higher sound. Very quick too.
>>>
>>> Keith Roberts
>>>
>>> On Feb 16, 2008 5:48 PM, Jon Page <jonpage at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>   It takes too long.  Just dry fit the hammers to the shanks
>>>> right after you've tapered them with the table saw ...
>>>
>>> I don't think you get the idea. Mating a shank's SW with a
>>> hammer weight will require less hammer mass alteration
>>> to achieve a smooth SW curve.
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jon Page
>>>
>>
>
>
>