back check, a magical mystery tour.

[Bernhard Stopper]

I think so Isaac =)

kind Regards

Bernhard


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Isaac OLEG" <oleg-i@noos.fr>
To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 1:16 AM
Subject: RE: back check, a magical mystery tour.


> I mean, there are more than one mode of play for the piano. If a
> bacheck position add strength to a larger window of force between
> piano and forte, no doubt it is very perceptible.
>
> I agree that the synchronism may be different when playing softly and
> playing at the edge of saturation, but if the brake induced by the
> internal friction is coherent and consistent vs. the flexibility of
> the ensemble a possibility exist that the response of the system
> remain similar for a larger dynamic zone.
>
> May be clear as mud certainly
>
> Isaac OLEG
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]De la
> part de Richard Brekne
> Envoyé : mardi 17 août 2004 20:32
> À : Pianotech
> Objet : Re: back check, a magical mystery tour.
>
>
> Good you brought Askenfelt into this Ed.  The first thing that
> bothered
> me about Bernhards post was the synchronization bit at all levels of
> play... but when you first mention the Five lectures... of course....
> no
> way these can be in sync at all to begin with..  Still.... ya gota
> admit
> he had a seductive explanation there.... :)
>
> Cheers
> RicB
>
> A440A@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Bernard writes:
> >
> ><< the energy of the hammer returned to the backcheck and the energy
> of the
> >key to the keyframe become synchronous with the said 2 milimeters. If
> this two
> >blows are synchronized, there is a higher pulse wave running through
> the
> >instrument giving more additional energy to the string than when this
> two blows are
> >time offset (and may cause phase losses when reaching the string).<<
> >
> > Greetings,
> >   According to Anders Askenfelt, the timing of these two events is
> dependant
> >on the force of the blow, so their synchronization is variable.  In
> the
> >publication "Five Lectures", (
> http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/ )  it is
> >pretty clear that the hammer will return to the back check well after
> the key
> >has hit the bottom of its stroke on all but the softest blows.  The
> stronger the
> >blow, the earlier the key bottoms in relation to everything else.
> >   There are transient pulses that do travel back and forth through
> the
> >action as the hammer goes through its arc, but without contacting
> anything, the
> >backcheck seems to be isolated until after escapement.  I am not
> convinced that
> >the distance from the tail of the hammer is as important as the
> interfacing
> >angle of tail to backcheck surface. There is certainly a feeling of
> contact when
> >the tail is grabbed suddenly by an acutely angled backcheck as
> opposed to the
> >longer path the tail makes when contacting a more parallel surface of
> the
> >backcheck. This seems to be no greater than the differences that can
> be felt with
> >different hardness of key end felt under the damper levers, though.
> >Regards,
> >
> >Ed Foote RPT
> >http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
> >www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives