On 8/2/97, paul mccloud <smccloud@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<<(Claire Davies) also had another hook made which was intended to be used
where there are no agraffes, ie. the capo bar. This hook had a longer
wire on it to reach down to the string. Instead of a freehand pull
upwards, it uses mechanical advantage to pull up the string.>>
Im delighted with Mr. Davies ingenious side-stepping of the direct
freehand pull, and cant wait to make use of it. Using the aggraphe/capo as
a fulcrum would almost seem to give more control over the bend. I haven't
written him yet for a handout, but I assume that the hook for the capo
section can adjust to varying heights between the string plane and the top
of the capo.
On 8/2/97, paul mccloud <smccloud@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<<Norm Neblett....used a spirit level imbedded in a small piece of
channel aluminum (actually it was from the Fazioli factory) to indicate
string level. The vial of the level and channel was about an inch long.
The diameter of the vial was about 1/4 inch or a little more, same as the
width of the channel. The bottom half of the channel was cut so that it
would sit on the three string unison. We took turns using this level to
indicate which string(s) needed to be moved. >>
Now were getting somewhere, ie. making sure that both the hammer strikes
and the string planes, straight across though they may be, have their
lines parallel. The spirit level sets string plane parallel to the floor.
We would hope that the keybed is parallel to the floor as well, to which
(in turn) the hammer rail and the flanges mounted thereon are also.
Remember, it doesnt do any good to have straight lines across the hammer
strike and the three strings in a trichord. If these two lines arent
parallel, youll get open strings.
On 8/2/97, paul mccloud <smccloud@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<<Norm used the method of putting a piece of felt strip across the top of
the wippens (under the knuckles). Simply by pressing the key one can
block the hammer against the strings to check the mating of the hammer
and strings.>>
Another great idea (which if I remember correctly Bill Spurlock reported
into PTech from the ABQ 95 convention.) Greta not just because it
"disarms"
the let-off which might be low enough to interfere with blocking the
hammer into the string, but because lifting at the key will also pick up
the damper lever, which (as the keys front leading decrease going up the
scale) lifting at the jack won't reliably do.
On 8/3/97, Maxpiano@aol.com wrote:
<<- and you also have to have the damper lifted by some means, such as by
the damper pedal. Don Mannino of Kawai suggested laying a strip of felt
across the top of the jacks to make the hammers block upon playing the
key, and the dampers lift by themselves.>>
I was using the sostenuto to do this. Actually my technique involves the
UC pedal as well, and when the piano gets longer than 7' and if I can't
find a very tall bar stool down in the den, operating both pedals
simultaneously requires the kind of levitation usually only possible with
poor diet. You can understand how happy I am to be able to lift the damper
with the key.
On 8/1/97, arnold1@mindspring.com wrote:
<<Finally, why are some strings unlevel in the first place? Is it a sign
that the agraffe, or some other bearing point is slightly defective and we
are compensating for it?>>
More likely the situation is that strings have no reason to be level until
we make them so. For my money, the pristine curve of music wire is enough
of a source considering that *at the strike point* the leveling has to be
accurate down to a few mils. That's why I don't care if my finger tips can
feel something unlevel just leaving the termination, or even right in
front of the damper head (maybe within 1/2" of strike). I don't care how
those strings curve outwards towards the strike point, I just care that
when all three strings arrive at the point where the hammer hits, they
form a straight line across the group.
On 8/1/97, David ilvedson <ilvey@a.crl.com> wrote:
<<I have been experimenting with those old aluminum keybushing cauls and
the hardwood ones also. I would set one (upside down...it is just the
right size to sit on the unison) on the three strings and if level they
would sit there.>>
Years ago, I would take the small steel block (the "half-bore" used to
record the original shank's orientation) from the upright hammer boring
jig (APSCo #16175) and stand it on it's end, as you describe. But I set
that aside with the realization that 1.) though it might tell you of the
presence or absence of a straight line across the trichord at strike it
would tell what that line might or might not be parallel to, and 2.) I
really wanted to be checking string level right at the strike point.
That's when I got a block of wood into which to mount a dial indicator
which would in turn sit in a machinist vice. This vice could the be slid
around on the keybed. I was on my own as far as making sure my readings
were at the strike points, but at least the straight line which I was
installing was by definition parallel to the keybed, and I was getting
within 1/16" of strike point. (Chris Gregg, your answer turns out to be a
public one...)
Several years later, I stumbled across the use of the UC as the ultimate
arbiter of what was straight and what wasn't. This was detailed in an
article in the 10/90 PTJ.
On 8/1/97, "Michael J. Wathen" <Michael.Wathen@uc.edu> wrote:
<<I've been thinking about this problem. What I think now is that it has
nothing to do with the relative phases of the three strings. More likely,
the strange sound that occurs when the hammer strikes strings that are not
level, is in fact due to the motion of the hammer. >>
Certainly, torsional distortions of what should be a "normal" collision of
the hammer within the string probably do exist. But I'd be willing to bet
my auxiliary aluminum tuning fork that they are small players compared to
the striking areas which develope on the hammer crown, as a result of
uneven contact. Imagine first a beautifully filed hammer hitting unlevel
strings. The hammer felt under the low strings has to squash considerably
before the high strings are going to be hit. With a blow of any force (and
the effect is worsened the harder you hit--as as Del rightfully points
out, the more doped up the hammer is), the low strings are going to be
singing at a forte level while the high strings is at mp, maybe mezzo.
Sounds like the ingredients of a UC sound, with the LH string only active
because the energy fed by the other two strings into the bridge finds much
less impedance in that passive LH string than the soundboard panel. If I
were voicing for as much power as musically possible, I wouldn't be happy
with a second clarinet section like that one of whom had forgotten to
remove his swab.
Consider now, the hammer well beaten in, which because of the grooves will
report that there are bo open strings at the impact. Here the high strings
has a string cut, maybe all of 1/8", but the low strings' cuts are 1/2".
We all know that the hammer's rebound will be quite different with a 1/8'
cut than with a 1/2" one. So will the hammer's damping (rather,
"crushing") of the transfer of energy to the string, and so will the
resulting waveform. Ordinarily, our voicing work involves evening out such
differences from note to note, and we don't complain. Here, voicing
differences of that size exist among strings on a single note. Unless
you're used to string-by-string voicing, you'd be seriously challenged.
But why put up with such a compromise to solid tone. File that hammer for
a curved crown, flat across, and level those strings. You think hammer
fitting is important for the standard position, wait to you hear the UC.
On 8/2/97, w sikora <sikora@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<< I characterize this background noise as sounding 'wirey' or 'wooly'.
It's the chaotic sound of a lot of little sounds that don't fit together.
The aural equivalent of steel wool.>>
Very good description! Listening to the sound, string-by-string, will put
the difference between solid tone and "open-string" tone in sharp
contrast.
On 8/2/97, Richard Moody <remoody@easnetsd.com> wrote:
<<So who the heck first floated this preposterous idea? >>
Mark Graham <magraham@bw.edu> started the thread. Lord knows who the first
etch was who tuned into this important step of tone regulation.
Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter
"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture"
Steve Martin
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC