<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1593" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
P {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue bgColor=white>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>David, I like your theory but I must say I have had
success with all the types you describe. This is just what my ears
have been telling me and I have been doing this for several years on all
pianos as have some others. I would love to see some slow
motion video of a comparison with all the scenarios you have described. You
may be quite correct about most of what you theorize.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Chris Solliday</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=davidlovepianos@comcast.net
href="mailto:davidlovepianos@comcast.net">David Love</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=caut@ptg.org
href="mailto:caut@ptg.org">'College and University Technicians'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, May 19, 2007 1:48
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CAUT] killer shanks</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">It might very well be
that thinned shanks help especially with harder hammers on low tension/light
soundboard designs. My own theory is that hammer resilience (bounce)
matching string tensions in some way is critical for hammer/string contact
time in terms of how partials develop vis a vis the fundamental. With a
poorly matched harder hammer on a light assembly, anything that assists in the
effective resilience of the hammer shank assembly will be a benefit.
With softer hammers that are a better match for the string scale/soundboard
interface, a thinned shank will not be necessary. Similarly, with higher
tension scales and accompanying stiffer soundboard assemblies, a thinned shank
on a firm and heavier hammer won’t reap the same benefit and might, in fact,
be a detriment. </SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN></FONT> </P>
<DIV>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy">David
Love<BR>davidlovepianos@comcast.net<BR>www.davidlovepianos.com</SPAN></FONT><FONT
color=navy><SPAN style="COLOR: navy"> </SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">-----Original
Message-----<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B>
caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] <B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">On Behalf Of </SPAN></B>Chris Solliday<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:53
AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B>
caut@ptg.org<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> [CAUT]
killer shanks</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></FONT> </P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Bob Hull</SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Yes I taper/channel the whole set
and sort by weight. I am told that the stiffening is akin to I-beam
construction but I am not an engineer so consider that hearsay. Speaking of
hearing just put a tapered shank in the middle of the bass section amongst the
hex and see if you hear a difference. I do. I get a stronger 3rd partial
most of the time and I like that. I think tha doing this clears up
the tone of the whole piano. You should experiment for yourself. A factory
channeled complete set is available from Abel through Wally Brooks who was the
first person to point out the attributes of doing this for
me. As I recall they are only Hamburg specs but I have used them
with success. Wally will also channel other sets for you for a small
fee. I am told that other sets are available from Pianotek and others but
I have not gotten any so consider that a rumor. Usually I channel my own with
a router gig and/or free hand on a belt sander. It is surprising how quickly
and uniformly they can be turned out which is why i often don't bother
with the router set up. I sort by weight to help smooth the Strikeweight taper
ala Stanwood. I hope we can get some slow mo video on the difference
someday.</SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Chris
Solliday</SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>