Sarah Fox wrote:
>Hi Ric,
>
>
>
>>Sarah... read my last paragraph... I open up for exactly that. I do
>>question the <<scientific basis>> ryan opened up with tho. Thats
>>quantifiable... so lets see the quantities documented before we stated
>>they are or are not. so.
>>
>>
>
>... er... Yes, you did. ;-)
>
>
Er... what did I ... yes I did.. the above paragraph is not a denial of
anything at all... I am not sure at all we are on the same page here.
>This is all part of the larger scientific process. It starts out with
>observation, then theorization, then hard testing of hypotheses linked to
>the theory, then refinement of the theory, etc. It's not so simple a
>process as we lead our undergraduate students to believe! ;-) So nobody is
>being unscientific here. Y'all are just talking about different stages of
>the scientific process, which is fine and good. Testing indeed needs to be
>done. Inquiring minds...
>
>
With respect Sarah... I doubt seriously any sound scientific method
includes claiming factuals without knowing whether there are indeed any
such facts documented. My reaction was to the statement as <<fact>> by
Ryan that.
"The hammers with less friction will spend a slightly less amount of
time on the string. The more tightly pinned ones will stay on a
microsecond longer dampening out the highest partials."
To which I replied simply lets see the documentation for such a claim.
You can not simply observe any of the above without some fairly
sophisticated equippement... so in my book, unless such testing has been
done and can be referenced we are still in the ballpark of conjecture.
Course... I'm open to any real documented studies done on the matter.
So much for that bit... As soon as Ryan self declared wandered into
the subjective realm of "What I like", however... my interest
immediatly rose a few notches as the general subject matter is one of
interest. Fascinating stuff to be sure.
All that said... to date... the only studies I have actually heard about
that have anything to do with this pinning vs power theme go exactly in
the direction of the standard 4-7 swings.... a couple of those have been
mentioned by others in this discussion already.. so I dont need to get
into that.
>I suppose I had never understood the argument (until now) that friction is
>the cost of stability, which is of greater overall importance -- or that
>there is a compromise between the two. Given that, I can see why techs
>strive to have the right amount of friction -- since it is easy to measure
>and is a close correlate of rigidity. I always thought the argument was
>that somehow pianists like the feel of friction, which I don't think they
>do.
>
>
>
What we think or suspect is one thing... what we can actually observe is
that the vast majority of pianos that pianists choose to play on end up
haveing totall friction levels in about the 12-15 gram range. This is
old stuff... Spurlock released tables to this affect 30 years ago...
Stanwoods thousand pianos confirms the tendancy. This is something that
has already been observed. It is born out my my own experience, and
that of the vast majority of technicians I know. This overall friction
has a hammer flange componet of somewhere in or very close to the range
we have been talking about... hence the longstanding defacto industry
standard. Now... if we want to question the validity of those
observations... fine... but we have to do better then pure conjecture or
loose application of theory not necessarilly properly contexted.
>But stepping outside the box, for a second, there's a problem of getting
>stuck in the groove of trying to optimize a technology that can only do just
>so much. Should we not be focusing on how to create tight, rigid, hard,
>frictionless, noiseless, easily serviceable bearings, rather than using the
>same ol' technology of packing an oversized wooden hole with enough padding
>to take up the slack and not be *too* heavy in friction, seeking to find the
>optimal comprimise the is the least of all evils?
>
That depends very much on the above observational base material is valid
or not. As I have said.. my own experience tells me too little friction
is as bad as too much... except that it doesnt cause the hammer to
simply stop playing at all in the extreme. Now... that said... there are
some interesting points raised by those who adhere to the lowest
possible friction priority... those who rather would push to the limits
the stablity issue for the sake of that cause. New York Steinways
venture into this garden in a young affair at this point... and we will
just have to see what the public responds with. I suspect that about
5-10 years down the line we will see that this was not such a good idea
after all... but I am willing to let the future speak for itself when it
comes down to it.
As stated.. I rather place priority on the firmest blow possible that
keeps friction within established levels. Until I see something
conclusive to the contrary, I have to continue to believe that this
established level of friction is pleasing to most pianists because of
the particular combination of control factors it sets up. Even if we
accept for the moment that one does increase power for less friction to
the degrees asserted... the flip side of this is that it narrows the
amount of latidude the finger can exert to create everything inbetween
max and min.... which by all accounts means a reduction in control... or
a demand of just that much more control ability from the pianist side.
I dont buy the increased power bit to begin with... and I am far from
convinced the control reduction is desireable in the second instance....
>Bushing cloth may not be
>the best material!
>
Pehaps not... but nothing more successfull has been used to date. I
keep saying the same thing about bridge pins.... :)
> While hard bearings may be noisy, they are only noisy if
>they are loose. The problem with Steinway's Teflon blunder was the
>loosening of the Teflon in the wooden hole with humidity changes.
>Conceivably, with wear, there could also be a problem with noise and runout
>(slop), as the Teflon holes wear larger. Considering these things, wouldn't
>the best long-range solution be to figure out a way to fix the bushing mount
>problem -- to make the mount more resistant to deterioration from humidity
>changes and, moreover, make the bushings very easily, quickly, and cheaply
>replaceable? What if all the hammer bushings could be replaced in the
>course of a half hour, without the need for painstaking fitting and
>refitting? What if total replacement of bushings were done every, say, 5-20
>years (depending on usage), at a cost to the owner of perhaps $100. Isn't
>that where we should be headed?
>
>
>
Grin... I am sure everyone would love to see the day maintaince on an
appropriatly functioning bushing was so simple.
>>They are on that track today as well, with very low friction levels in
>>their hammershank flanges At least in New York they operate this
>>way. Hamburg is more traditional.
>>
>>
>
>
>
I question that.
>Perhaps ol' Horowitz had some infuence on them, as their official
>spokesartist. ;-)
>
>
Nobody could play his piano but himself. Hell.. you could blow the keys
down much like you blow out candles in a birthday cake. Nope... not
what I call a good idea.
>Peace,
>Sarah
>
>
>
Cheers
RicB
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
>
>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC