[CAUT] WNG parts

[Brent Fischer]

Thanks for your reply Mr. Sutton. One more question when you have a chance.  Suppose one is going to replace #54-76 on aSty D, critical V-bar area, to increase volume. Is this goingto be insufficient if the startling increase that Chris and David are talking about is dependent on a coupling effect throughoutthe instrument?  I don't stray from traditional methods oftenbut inquiring minds have to know so I'll order some up andtry this on a newer D here.
--- On Fri, 9/10/10, Ed Sutton <ed440 at mindspring.com> wrote:

From: Ed Sutton <ed440 at mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [CAUT] WNG parts
To: caut at ptg.org
Date: Friday, September 10, 2010, 12:53 PM



 
 


 
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/20100910/1304a58b/attachment.htm>