Ryan Sowers wrote: > /Agreed... but we are talking about a significant lingering from a > friction difference reflected by 5-7 vs 8-10 swings. *I question the > degree of significance that lingering period has,* and questioned > whether > there was some data to back up the claim that this difference can > account for the change in partial behavior you claimed... yes ??/ > > The data is what our senses tell us: We can hear that the tone is more > brilliant and therefore must have more energy in the high partials; we > can also easily feel the difference. > Not good enough IMO. ones senses are easily .... far too easily misinterpreted. The presence of higher partials that otherwise seem lacking are just as likely... more likely in my opinion, the result of a slightly less the precise, firm blow. I have heard this argumentation below, and if it were true then one could expect to measure and get reasonbly consistant inharmonicity readings for same blow. As I said in in earlier post... even cyber ears crude measuring device reveals what seems very clearly to me to be an obvious tendancy towards less and less consitant readings with increasingly less friction.... starting at friction levels that exceed what is acceptable for any repetition at all to obviously loose flange centers. Like I said... good testing equipment and proceedures need to be applied to really see whats going on. The above is really not more then jumping to conclusions before you've really looked closely IMHO. Then aslo... Cyber tuner does not reveal an increase in power proportional to lessening hammer flange friction... quite the opposite it reveals an increase in power rougly inverserly proportional to said. Again.. Cyber tuner is not a good enough device to stand any theory on me thinks... but it is a pointer... and it points in the oposite direction you take above. In short, at this moment in time I maintain that this difference is, as I have said, an increase in noise related to less stability in the hammer. That it is high end noise is compatable with said instability. > Obiously when we are voicing hammers, part of what we are doing is > adjusting hammer to string contact time, correct? > Thats one way of looking at it. > If Roger Jolly evens out his voicing by evening out hammer pinning > doesn't this prove that the tightess of the bushing also has an effect > on the hammer to string contact time? > No, I dont see that. One can achieve the same rebound time with varing conditions of contact. You could be hitting just one string... wobbling over all 3, or nailing all 3 jack on the spot and still be out in the exact same time span. If you want to show that bushing tightness alone can affect contact time... then you have to measure that. Jumping at what may seem to you a reasonable conclusion is just plain not dependable enough. Cheers RicB > > > Ryan Sowers, RPT Puget Sound Chapter > Pianova Piano Service > Olympia, WA > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Do you Yahoo!? > Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now > <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=26640/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush>.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC