[CAUT] Fw: Re: WNG parts

Brent Fischer brent.fischer at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 11 06:03:55 MDT 2010



--- On Fri, 9/10/10, Brent Fischer <brent.fischer at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Brent Fischer <brent.fischer at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CAUT] WNG parts
To: "Ed  Sutton" <ed440 at mindspring.com>
Date: Friday, September 10, 2010, 5:50 PM

  Thanks again Ed, the strikeline theory works. I saw the first attemptsSty was trying in the early nineties and have used it since.  My planis to first install carbon shanks in the v bar section and make aconclusion on volume and brightness using the existing NY hammers.
After doing my homework I apologize to WNG for not throughly readingtheir site. Under "the new redesigned shank" it is clearly stated thatone can expect an increase in sound and power. Furthermore theyhave developed a "hard bushing." I assume it's carbon and will havethe same effect as teflon without the headache. Carbon on carbon.So no more vibrating parts jokes either.  In conclusion, kudos to Bruce Clark for his continued research to make
 our profession advance. I met Bruce at a young age, he was showing me aroundthe Pratt and Read plant when we went into an area where the rimpresses for the Mason's had been rescued and were now in limbo,and his quote was something like, " I wonder if they'll ever makethem again."   Brent 
--- 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: "Brent Fischer" <brent.fischer at yahoo.com>, caut at ptg.org
Date: Friday, September 10, 2010, 4:16 PM



 
 
 
Brent-
I'm not sure I understand your plan, or that 
I'm that well informed myself.
One thing to look at in the first capo area of a 
big Steinway is the strike point line.
Try testing note by note, and you may find that a 
J-shaped line gives better volume.
Other folks will have more to say.
Ed 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  Brent 
  Fischer 
  To: Ed Sutton ; caut at ptg.org 
  Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 6:26 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [CAUT] WNG parts
  

  
    
    
      
        

        Thanks for your reply Mr. Sutton. One more question when 
        you 
        have a chance.  Suppose one is going to replace #54-76 on 
        a
        Sty D, critical V-bar area, to increase volume. Is this going
        to be insufficient if the startling increase that Chris and 
        David 
        are talking about is dependent on a coupling effect 
throughout
        the instrument?  I don't stray from traditional methods 
        often
        but inquiring minds have to know so I'll order some up and
        try 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/20100911/2b6b8b4c/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the CAUT mailing list

This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC