Action noise (was Beatles song)

[Phillip Ford]

>.....
>      Should the positioning of the hammer tail relative to the top of the
>check be  so critical as to induce as noticeable a change in sound as is
>reported,  then the conclusion seems inescapable  that the sound would be
>varying as checking does or not occur.  I am not able to note, in my own
>perception, to find such a correlation.
>      However, if this effect does exist, I would suggest that it occurs not
>as result of energy being delivered to any signficant degree to the string
>through a so-called pulse in the action, or the waveform output of  the
>soundboard being significantly modified by the checking, or by dragging the
>tail on the check under particular conditions,  but, rather as the result of
>the well-known masking effect of noises in the action on the sound.

         I think all of these may be attempts to say the same thing.  A 
'pulse' in the action or a slight dragging of the tail may result in a 
different type or volume of noise produced by the action, which is giving 
this 'masking effect', as you call it.  I put that in quotes because it's 
not clear to me whether the action noise is in fact 'masking' the sound 
output from the strings or if in fact is an integral, and perhaps 
desirable, part of what we recognize as piano sound.  Also, with regard to 
modifying the waveform output of the soundboard, it's also unclear to me 
whether this action noise is being heard directly (just something extra put 
on top of the sound coming from the soundboard, so to speak) or if this 
noise is traveling through the keybed, case, etc. to the soundboard and 
modifying the sound output from the soundboard.  Or, perhaps more likely, a 
combination of both.
         This perhaps has some bearing on keybed design.  One of the 
primary functions of the keybed is obviously structural.  It needs to 
provide a stable base for the keyboard.  But it's also shuttling vibration 
to and from the soundboard and rim.  I've always considered it a mark of a 
good piano that you can feel the vibration through the keys.  This means 
that there has to be a good acoustical path from soundboard to key.  This 
is problematic if you want to minimize noise transmission from action to 
soundboard.  If the path is good for vibrations coming from the soundboard, 
it's also presumably good for vibrations going to the soundboard.  I 
suppose you can't have it both ways.  If you want to minimize sound (noise) 
traveling from the action to the soundboard then you have to accept that 
you might not get much feel of the soundboard vibrations in the keys.

>   I know
>others disagree, but, in my opinion, the cleanest, best sound to be produced
>as a result of things the pianist controls,  is obtained by minimizing all
>kinds of noises in the touch, particularly the thump at the end of the
>keystroke....
>.....Their analysis was that
>touching the key in such a way made the difference which was exactly right,
>although their concept of touching the key in certain characteristic ways
>was incorrect and a misconception of the actual fact that the touch of the
>pianist, however made, is superior acoustically if done in a fashion which
>minimizes noise, particularly at the botton of the keystroke.
>      To evaluate this I made a listening device using a stethoscope with a
>modified tube which enabled me to attach the pickup to the botton of the
>keybed and listen while playing.  One can easily hear a tremendous roar, for
>example during a trill, or scales,  if the pianist continously forces the
>key violently onto the punching while playing.

With regard to what you say here, it's interesting to me that Andre' is 
insistent that firm front rail punchings give the 'best' results (and they 
have to be Wurzen of course - perhaps he can chime in here - Andre', are 
you saying the firmer the better, or is there some optimum firmness?).  I 
believe he is talking about a change in sound as a result of firm front 
punchings, not just a change of feel.  Some of this obviously has to be a 
matter of taste.  Perhaps Andre' likes a lot of noise ;-).  It's also hard 
to separate the sound itself from the relationship of feel and sound to the 
pianist.  Is a firm punching better because it results in more key landing 
'noise'?  Or is a firm punching better because it changes the way the 
pianist feels the sound being produced and therefore modifies the way he 
plays slightly to achieve the sound he wants, which results in less (or 
perhaps more) key landing 'noise'?

>Possibly, as I said above,
>the effect of the checking location, if real, contributes similarly,
>although I am, as I said, skeptical mainly due to the fact that this would
>imply a systematically varying tone correlated to whether or not the action
>is take into check by the pianist.  Checking does not occur all of the time,
>or, very possibly, even half the time or less,  when the action is being
>operated by a pianist, in my opinion.
>  ...
>Regards, Robin Hufford

I agree that the action is not going into check much of the time.  But, if 
I understand you correctly, you are saying that the sound effect of the 
check position, if any, is dependent on whether or not the action is going 
into check, and would thus be due to checking noise.  I think this implies 
that if the checks were set up so that the action went into check less, 
then less checking noise would result and the sound would be 'better'.  If 
this were the case, then it would seem that the lower the checks were set 
the better.  But, as I understand it, the statement is that 2 mm below the 
tail is optimum, and either above this point or below this point is 
sub-optimum.

Phil Ford