[CAUT] Steinway sound

[rwest1 at unl.edu]

It would seem to me that shank distortion would be as measurable a  
physical property as any other and therefore it would be controllable  
by the manufacturer .  Apply a given force and a given flex will  
result.  Parts inconsistencies from note to note up and down the  
scale will indeed  be present.  But that's a given with any action,  
it seems to me.  A carefully crafted action still has enough  
consistency from key to key for the pianist to control anyhow.  And  
that would include controlling the flex of the shank.  The fact that  
the force may vary as the piano is played is exactly the point.  The  
pianist varies the force to produce the variation in volume and tone.

What I'm saying, therefore, is that perhaps a greater degree of flex  
may be desirable in Steinway's smaller grands because of the tonal  
results.  But admittedly I'm speculating as to why earlier Steinways  
designs may have been successful, but perhaps not powerful enough to  
compete with a large concerto orchestra in large halls, due to lack  
of hammer weight.

As Fred states, we don't want to see the hammer wobbling left to  
right, but the fact that the hammer arches back on a hard blow and  
delivers a strike differently and in a different area of the hammer  
from a soft blow, a strike without significant shank distortion, may  
be a good thing, without any more inconsistency of control than a  
rigid shank.  In fact there may be more variability and a wider  
choice of color and volume.  Until, of course, the weight of the  
hammer is not great enough to really punch out the concerto volume.

Richard West


On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:21 PM, Delwin D Fandrich wrote:

> How much whip there is—or is not—in the hammershank depends quite a  
> lot on the force of the key strike. It also depends on the  
> stiffness of the shank, the mass of the hammer and the exact  
> physical relationship between the hammer and the shank, of course,  
> but even with a given hammer and hammershank the amount of whip— 
> and, hence, its interaction with the strings—is anything but  
> consistent as the key force is varied from pianissimo to forte.
>
> It is tempting to make universal assumptions about phenomena such  
> as hammershank distortion based on available high-speed video clips  
> but these clips are not at all exhaustive. While we may observe  
> some particular amount of whip in one hammer and shank assembly and  
> with some certain amount of key force what happens at some other  
> amount of key force will most certainly be something else  
> altogether. Not to mention what might be happening two or three  
> octaves up or down the compass.
>
> ddf
>
> Delwin D Fandrich
> Piano Design & Fabrication
> 620 South Tower Avenue
> Centralia, Washington 98531 USA
> del at fandrichpiano.com
> ddfandrich at gmail.com
> Phone  360.736.7563
>
> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf  
> Of rwest1 at unl.edu
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:24 AM
> To: caut at ptg.org
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound
>
> Dale,
>
> I don't have a current project going, but I've always wondered what  
> it would be like to go with early designs.  And I don't  
> particularly like the way Steinway is going with its current  
> designs.  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.
>
> Richard West
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20110228/eb36f2c0/attachment-0001.htm>