<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>David,
Jim, et al,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>First,
David. Thanks for the comment about hoping students appreciate a dedicated
teacher. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The
most convincing evidence for the value of Wapin, believe it or not, has nothing
to do with science. The science is really an aside. There are over two
hundred Wapin installations to date. Every one of them I have experienced
produces a very distinct result not possible with rebuilding. I hear it
every time. Initially I was the biggest skeptic. I clamored for
others to give their opinions: "do you hear what I hear?". Yes, I remember
Jim your visit to Cincinnati. And I remember your comments just have
recalled them in the previous post. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>So, I
have no desire at this point to produce or display scientific studies
about Wapin. Anyone can accept or reject the claims as they see
fit. That said I will talk about what I have learned since the beginning
of my quest with Wapin. I will leave true scientific research to
those who make it their profession. Maybe some graduate student will write a
thesis someday. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Let me
just throw out one gem. Differential equation models show mathematically
that the motion of a vibrating string depends on the boundary conditions. One
boundary is the nearly fixed and rigid cast iron capo bar while the other
boundary is the flexible bridge-soundboard system. The moving string will
loose its energy overtime doing work (physics term) on the system. In a
normal bridge system, there are two functions (boundary conditions) that
reduce the energy in the string by doing work on them: the terminating pin at
the bridge is one, and the other is the clamping of the string produced by
the slant of the pin. Wapin removes one of the boundary conditions:
that of the clamping and thus the energy required to perform this function is
garnished and kept in the string a little longer. With this physical model
we can theorize the Wapin decouples the string and probably does so
slightly.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Consider this. Most piano manufacturers that provide concert
instruments for stage and performance venues will only keep those instruments on
the public venue for an average of five years. After this, conventional
wisdom says the piano has lost some of its luster. It may be an
exceptional instrument in private venues but they want to keep their best foot
forward for the public. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
believe that this conventional wisdom arose experientially over many
years. I also believe that they are right. But why is another
question. Manufacturers go to considerable length and effort to make sure
that every joint is fitted as well as possible. The belief is that a
well fitted bridge-soundboard system will give the greatest tone
production, projection, and sustain. What really happens over those five
years is that the coupling grows stronger and stronger between the
systems. Each system moves, deforms and forms seeking an
equilibrium. Perhaps, after five years the various parts of the system
start to become too strongly coupled. A strongly coupled system will move
energy more easily between the systems. The energy in the upper portions
of the piano will tend to dissipate too quickly. So quickly that much of the
energy will leave the string before it can even set up a standing wave on the
string and thus produce a harmonic tone. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>How does this stand
up in practice? One year, at music hall in Cincinnati, Barry Douglas came
to perform a Prokovief Piano Concerto with the Symphony. There were two C &
A pianos one stage for use. He didn't really care for either. He
complained and the Symphony allowed me to bring in the 1929 Steinway. The
dealer reprepped his pianos and we moved ours to Music Hall. Douglas tried
each piano and with very little deliberation picked the 1929 D over the two new
pianos. He had no reservations and used again the second night.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>At Interlochen the
year before last the same sort of thing occurred with Olga Kern. The
Detroit dealer sent up a Steinway D C & A piano that they considered to
be top notch. After giving the piano a try with the orchestra at rehearsal
Olga voiced concerned that piano would not work that well in the outdoor
venue and with no miking. She tried and decided to use a 1975 Baldwin
SD-10 with Wapin over the New C & A Steinway. This scenario was
repeated a few weeks ago in Sioux Falls when she decided to use a 1951 Steinway
D with Wapin over a 1983 Steinway D. So much for
stories.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=242223900-07112006><FONT face=Tahoma size=2></FONT></SPAN><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=242223900-07112006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=242223900-07112006> </SPAN>-----Original
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> caut-bounces@ptg.org
[mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org]<B>On Behalf Of </B>David Skolnik<BR><B>Sent:</B>
Monday, November 06, 2006 5:26 AM<BR><B>To:</B> College and University
Technicians<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CAUT] Wapin Installation at Brandon
University<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Michael W-<BR>Thanks for the input and background, as well as the
link to additional information. I think the point I made in my (next to)
last post remains. What (some) technicians are looking for, I think, are
both a collection of exhaustive data, which, if necessary, is interpreted
sufficiently to be understood by reasonably intelligent reader, along with a
thorough discussion of the physical phenomena generating the data.
Without that, we remain in the realm of subjective (albeit collective)
observation and speculation. I don't, in any way, mean to dismiss the claims
made by you(s) or the observations reported by many, nor even to assume an
aggressively skeptical posture, but I don't think it's fair, or
reasonable to expect a community that has, at its heart, a strong scientific
orientation, <FONT size=1><I>(can we still say <B>'orientation</B>?)
</I></FONT>to suspend its methodological criteria. <I>The single variable!
<BR><BR></I>Again, I look forward, both, to the "Birkett" process, as well as
an opportunity I can avail myself of, to see the product and process.
Brandon is not a possibility for me. Nevertheless, I hope it goes
well.<BR><BR>Lastly, I hope your students appreciate you. You seem to be
quite a dedicated teacher.<BR><BR>Best regards -<BR><BR>David
Skolnik<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>