[CAUT] WNG parts

[Ed Sutton]

Hypothesis 1. While in contact with the string, the hammer functions as a damper to reduce higher partials.
In this sense, felt softness, weight of the hammer, amount of surface in contact with the string and resistance in the action center may all be somewhat equivalent in so far as they produce similar damping effects. Perhaps a whipping or twisting movement in the shank also increases damping. Therefore, if the carbon shanks have less whipping and twisting than wood shanks, the damping may be less. Result, more power, more brightness.

Hypothesis 2. Since slapping of the strings against the hammer produces very high partials as the hammer is leaving the string, perhaps the more rigid carbon shank lets the hammer get away from the strings faster, producing fewer high partials.

Hypothesis 3. Perhaps the wobbling of wood shanks accelerates out-of-phase motion of string waves in higher partials (similar to irregular hammer/string contact). Thus the carbon shank, with less wobble, allows the unison to settle sooner into an organized wave form.

Hypothesis 4. The lighter carbon fiber parts produce an action such that a higher percentage of the input energy is used to move the hammer, thus delivering more energy to the string relative to effort of playing. 

Finally, Hypothesis 5. The inefficiencies of wood action parts (relative to carbon fiber) produce a kind of "buffering" of the varied energy inputs of the performer, tending to "even out" the resultant sound. By producing less "buffering," the carbon fiber parts produce a "more sensitive" or "more responsive" action, capable of delivering more controlled gradients of timbre.

Ed Sutton
  ----- Original Message ----- 


  From: Brent Fischer 
  To: caut at ptg.org 
  Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 1:55 PM
  Subject: Re: [CAUT] WNG parts


        Hi David,  


             Your probably the one to answer the deflection and energy transfer
        issues related to all this. So there is really nothing to do with any
        vibrational qualities of the parts themselves but is a dramatic increase
        in energy transfer to the wire. Does this mean that there is a possible
        loss of let's say up to twenty percent from wood shanks? Then how
        does this increased stiffness add up with a complete carbon action
        including the back action and subsequent consequence on amplitude.
        I can see how the energy transfer could relate to sustain but also brightness?  
        WNG website asserts much  about action control but I have not read anything 
        about the acoustical  consequences.  There is still the factor of the felt 
        bushing so maybe  we'll see the redemption of the teflon bushing or maybe 
        a new carbon one.  
        Brent

        --- On Fri, 9/10/10, David Stanwood <stanwood at tiac.net> wrote:


          From: David Stanwood <stanwood at tiac.net>
          Subject: Re: [CAUT] WNG parts
          To: caut at ptg.org
          Date: Friday, September 10, 2010, 8:47 AM


          Hi Guys,

          Doug Wood told me a story... he changed out the wooden shanks on a perfectly voiced Steinway D for WGN shanks... Kept the same hammers. The difference was startling.. MUCH LOUDER!

          David Stanwood

          PS - the Subject line is getting off course here... should be "WNG parts"... not "CAUT Digest, Vol 23, Issue 23"

          > Brent, I assure you it is not the resonator that I experienced. I have been working with Masons for over 30 years. No this was definitely the shank and Bruce Clark explained that the sustain begins sooner and lasts longer as a result. The difference is quite startling.
          > Chris Solliday
       

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100910/628a4e91/attachment.htm>