My experience tends to agree with this. The overall length of the sustain is not actually increased, but the differential in amplitude between the attack phase and the beginning of the sustain phase is reduced and the piano sounds less percussive with the perception of greater sustain or a greater singing quality. Introducing greater flexibility in the shoulder (and sometimes the crown) is necessary to reduce the amplitude at attack. The older and/or less stiff the soundboard the more flexibility is required of the hammer to lessen that percussive quality. Interestingly, were you able to compare the soundboard/hammer interface in the original condition where a stiffer soundboard was a better match for the relatively harder hammer you would probably not find much greater amplitude in the attack phase since the greater stiffness of the soundboard would provide the control and the now too hard hammer would be less consequential. As the board gets weaker that control must necessarily pass to the hammer. It's the argument for replacing old hammers on and old soundboard with a softer version than was on there originally--or be prepared for some serious needle work. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of John Delacour Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:24 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Sustain At 15:58 -0600 30/12/08, Ron Nossaman wrote: >...The tonal envelope in the "short sustain" section had a sharp >short attack spike, with the dwell and decay considerably quieter. >The impression, even though the total duration was similar, was that >the sustain was short. What worked best on this piano was side >needling high shoulders. I had him listen while I worked a hammer >and he could hear the attack peak lessen, and extend further into >the tonal envelope, blend more smoothly with the dwell and decay. >The impression was a longer sustain, but it was just a >redistribution of the power curve. I had a very similar experience this year with a very old but quite nicely rebuilt big Blüthner when I was called in by some London colleagues to tone and regulate it in order to satisfy a "very fussy" "prima donna" type who was due to give a recital on it. My preconceptions and my initial impressions of the piano led me to think that I would not end up satisfying the man and saving my colleagues' reputation and pocket. I demonstrated to the man what I saw as the problem, namely a short attack followed by an uneven and too rapid decay and he was able to hear what I was showing him. Politics did not allow me to tell him I doubted if I could make much improvement. By the end of the job, which took about 16 hours including a lot of regulation work, he was delighted with the piano and I myself thought I wouldn't mind having it at home. Exactly how it works I'm not sure, but I accounted for it rather as you have described. Somehow the attack, although it was not terribly metallic, was stealing from the dwell and sustain. Contrary to my initial fears, there was no significant energy being lost in the resonant structure, and once the tonal envelope was rectified the soundboard sang like a goodun in spite of its 120 years. The hammers were plain off-the-shelf Abels and not what I would have used myself, but the result was fine. I must say that I find that sort of job the most rewarding of all, not least because one has first to listen very carefully to the client and translate his or her artistic ramblings into usable data for the progress of the work. In this case the pianist was indeed fussy and full of artistic soul but he knew something was wrong and as the work progressed I found out exactly how to satisfy him and myself into the bargain. JD
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC