I think clang is a harsh attack that excites upper partials in the lower
registers of the instrument whereas pop is am attack more fucussed on lower
partials. Clang is more likely to occur in assemblies that don't adequately
filter out higher partials in the lower registers.
David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com
There doesn't seem to be a clear dividing line between pop and
clang, which seems to me to be a considerable part of the
problem. I'd love to hear that Chickering first hand. My
experience is that these boards are way more efficient than a
CC board, and produce a different tonal envelope with a given
hammer. I find a hammer that is borderline adequate to needing
hardener for a CC board, is too hard for RC&S. At some point,
voicing preferences come in. Here's what I think I'm hearing
on my boards. Something like Ray's Wurzen hammers produce an
attack that is sharp and loud, which doesn't blend well with
the "dwell" and decay. I find that if I can get that attack
down a bit (the usual shoulder work, followed by side needling
does something I really like) and extend it into the dwell,
the overall tonal envelope blends better and sounds much
better ("swell" <G>) to me. What you describe as high partial
chaos on the attack (I'd call it clang) goes away, and the
decay slope is less steep. All the power is still there, it's
just spread out farther into the envelope instead of being
concentrated into the impact. The down side is that the
pianist isn't getting smacked in the forehead with the
disproportionately huge attack spike, and perceives the piano
as lacking power. Out in the hall, however, I find this board
and voicing combination to carry at least as well as the
percussive attack on the CC board, and to my ear, has a richer
sound, stronger in low partials.
> Still learning
Everyone who's interested is. Slowly, but I think we're
gaining ground.
Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC