[CAUT] Steinway sound

[Fred Sturm]

On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:24 AM, rwest1 at unl.edu wrote:

> In particular I've wondered about the whipping effect a lighter,  
> longer shank might provide.  It seems like the difference between a  
> catapult and a trebuchet.  I know the leverage is totally different,  
> but my point is whipping versus jamming the hammer toward the  
> string.  I've seen the high speed videos and I was amazed at how  
> much the hammer shank bends on a hard blow.  In fact the hammer  
> doesn't strike at 90 degrees because it tilts back so far, then  
> scrubs the string a couple of times before it's finally clear.   
> Amazing and thought provoking.


	I doubt a longer shank would practical (lots of reasons), but the  
newer Steinway shank design is clearly stiffer than the older. It is  
conical in shape (tapering toward the hammer) as opposed to  
cylindrical or octagonal (more normal, untapered, as in Renner and  
older Steinway). The new WNG is probably even stiffer.
	A large part of the hammer wobble (back and forth in line with the  
shank) is right by the glue joint. The shank probably curves in a sort  
of parabolic shape, more curve the closer you get to the hammer. Don  
Mannino says the glue collar has a big effect there, adding stiffness  
to the joint (not gluing the hammer better to the shank, just changing  
its behavior in motion).
	There was a time when absolutely every quality grand had shanks that  
were thinned in the upper ranges, and Steinway used to remove a lot of  
wood from the molding as well. Lots of elements that have changed, in  
conjunction with the heavier hammer weight. All these changes no doubt  
have an impact on both touch and tone.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
fssturm at unm.edu
"Since everything is in our heads, we had better not lose them." Coco  
Chanel