<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000EE" vlink="#551A8B" alink="#FF0000">   Hi there Mr Roger Jolly.  (That cant be your real name now can it ??? grin) Roger Jolly wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Hi Richard,              I thought I would share some thoughts with you, Young's formula is not quite accurate in an absolute sense but good enough for most practical uses.</blockquote> Can you give me Youngs Formula ? I have use for several such formulas right now and have a hard time locateing the appropriate ones. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  Test that I have conducted in the areas of inharmonicity and string coupling, has more to do with the dwell time of the hammer on the string than with the basic property of a given piano wire.</blockquote> Yes.. but this has to due with amplitudes of partials doesnt it ?? I mean hammer elasticity cant change the actual frequencies of string partials.. or what? <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  A well voiced hammer will rebound from the string quicker than an over hard hammer, therefore there is an increase in sustain and power for the upper partials, and a significant shift of inharmonicity readings. Needling various zones of the hammer effects the efficientcy of energy transfer, and hence the partial build up from the string. Taking a single wire on A440. The difference in inharmonicity reading at ppp-mf-fff is quite dramatic, this futher reinforces my theory that dwell time is the critical element.  I have further played around with the jack height/position, and have noticed and heard a wide variety of changes in this area. The only way that I can figure possible, to get a true mathmatical picture would be to integrate time, mass and energy into the formula. Unfortunately it's been too long for me to take a run at it. No answers just more questions. Regards Roger  </blockquote> Yep... another side of the coin. For the moment I am concerned with partial frequencies. But your point is interesting. I've imagined that these electronice tuning devices that provide information as to the amplitude of string partials could make for some really insteresting voicing work. I have heard this about Dwell Time before, tho put a bit differently. Laroy Edwards aftertouch class I think drifted into this area (Oslo 1986 or so) I think he said something to the effect that "voicing can be viewed as altering the volume of partials" and made the point that Dwell time is one controlling factor, if not the controlling factor. That jived nicely with something I heard a few years later from Franz Mohr in a visit he made to Seattle. His voicing was a bit non standard in method. He delt only with the very top of the hammer, and only needled there very very shallow. He didnt seem to think the rest of the hammer made much difference. He said something to the affect that "you only need to get the hammer to jump off the string quick enough" Another guy I know named Ed McMourough also thinks along these lines, but combines this with a method of regulating actions that in essence reduces action mass to an absolute minimum. "The Light Hammer Regulating Technique" or something of that sort. Interesting reading, tho Steinway doesnt really like him ripping out all the key leads they so ardiuosly insert at the factory. Still, his results are impressive and remind me a bit of the Horowitz piano. Good stuff.. Richard Brekne Sydneskleiven 1 5010 Bergen, Norway <a href="richardb@c2i.net">E-mail Richard Brekne</a> <a href="http://home.c2i.net/ric/RicMain.html">Richard Brekne Website</a> </body> </html>