[CAUT] WNG parts

[Paul T Williams]

I like Hypothises #4, and a bit of #5.  it makes the most sense to me. 
when delivering a hard blow, these shanks give all they've got to the 
strings and, being so rigid, bounce right off.  I'm still wondering about 
ppp playing.  I'll let you all know when I'm finished regulating and 
voicing by the end of next week on this one. (Sty M from the '60's to 
refresh you all's memory) On a side note: the DW and UP were greatly 
improved as this original action was heavy as a rock. Now, juuuuust right 
with the DW and UW.  It should be a nice piano. BTW...I used Abel Naturals 
from Wally with light weight ones...)  Can't wait to hear the end result!

Paul'




From:
"Ed  Sutton" <ed440 at mindspring.com>
To:
<caut at ptg.org>
Date:
09/10/2010 02:55 PM
Subject:
Re: [CAUT] WNG parts



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/20100910/0a94cd69/attachment-0001.htm>