<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <title></title> </head> <body> Richard, At this point I do equate more lower partials with better sound.    I prefer the more traditional "American" sound.  That's me.  I'm not saying others are wrong.  I can create all the power, sustain, and upper partials anybody wants, but the sound I want must have great dynamic range also.  To have the great dynamic range the lower partials must be there.   The discussions we had on the Wapinlist were about various ways to create those lower partials if they weren't there originally in the piano.  Using thinned shanks is one of the ways.  I measured every shank originally and found them to be almost always .250.   I started by matching the unthinned shanks to the treble shanks (.200).  Wally Brooks' thinned shank is .185.  I also measured shanks from old pianos and they were .185.  My thinning method created shanks very consistant from shank to shank.  The thickness has nothing to do with hammer mass. I tap tune the shanks after checking the shanks for correct pinning.  Low pitch shanks on the bass end.  So, for me, there is somewhat a correlation between the shank and hammer mass.  The piano is a percussion instrument in some aspects and the shank is relative to a drum stick in my mind.  I think others have said that here before. I don't thin shanks myself anymore because  I can buy the shanks already thinned.  They are very consistant in thickness. I really liked what Richard West posted about shanks.  Stiffness seems to eliminate "that little wiggle" the hammer does with the string.  "That little wiggle" seems to be a help and I want it.   Tim Coates University of South Dakota University of Sioux Falls   Richard Brekne wrote: <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid3FC0A3B8.A580709B@grieg.uib.no"> <pre wrap="">An interesting experiment Tim, one that deserves to be followed up, tho perhaps money and other resources will prohibit that. Whatever holes may or may not be present doesnt change that at all, nor you observations. Tho I agree with you 1 billion % about the "we arent scientists" bit, I think all of us are cabable of spoting some fairly significant details, raising some astute questions, and making many relavant observations. The trick seems to be keeping these later in perspective of the former. That said... you seem to equate "better sound" with "enhanced lower partials". Is this what you mean to be the case ? How much thinning are we talking about and was it relative to something to do with hammer mass or was it consistant for each hammer ? Cheers, and thanks for the interesting post RicB Tim Coates wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I don't believe I said octagonal shanks sound better. I said it appears your assumption is that stiffer shanks sound better. I disagree. I believe thinned shanks sound better. Also, I don't pretend to be a scientist. I am a piano technician. I am very serious about that point, as I work with true scientists and we shouldn't pretend we are something we are not. I proved to myself using RCT's Pianalyzer that what I heard could also be detected by an unsophisticated piece of software. None of my results were intended for the public, although I shared the results with members of the Wapinlist. We had this discussion about a year ago. We have all moved on and seem to agree about the positive aspects of thinned shanks. I tested the difference between a section of bass shanks that started out octagonal (or hexagonal if you want <g>) and then were thinned. I have developed a method to thin shanks without removing the hammers from the shanks. The hammers were new, as were the shanks. About the only variable was the thickness of the shanks. The hammers were checked for mating to the strings in all testing. They started out mated and were realigned so as to be mated as they were from the start. In other words no felt was removed to keep them mated. Regulation stayed constant. I am sure someone on this list can find fault with all of this as is the custom . But you know what? I could care less. I could hear the difference (as many others do to). Every single note had more strength in the lower partials. A deeper warmer sound with more power was heard and recorded. If I wasn't looking for a cheap and dirty way to test this with something besides my ears, I would have used something like Goldwave to record and put the recording into highly sophisticated software for real analyzation. I don't know where the information is anymore and it isn't worth my time to dig it up. All you have to do is take a hammer/shank that fits nicely in a section, pop the hammer, exchange the shank with a thinned treble shank and you will hear for yourself. Using thinned shanks for all the notes isn't my idea. I don't take credit for ideas that aren't mine. But I am very grateful to the people who brought all this to my attention. Some are on this list and they know who they are. Tim Coates University of South Dakota University of Sioux Falls _______________________________________________ caut list info: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives">https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>