In his November 4 post, Tim Coates said that my post of the same date was
interesting, but that I lacked history and information about the process.
How is that so? Exactly what is it that I am lacking, Tim?
Pursuant to Tim's post of November 5, I looked up the "Scientific Data" on
the WAPIN web site. Six spectrum plots were shown, two each of a rebuilt
1929 Steinway D with WAPIN bridge, two of an original 1984 D without the
WAPIN, and two of a Kawai concert grand. A linear and a logarithmic plot
of the spectrum of note D3 of each piano was shown. I have some questions
regarding those plots.
1. Why was only one unison (D3) used for those studies/illustrations?
2. The plots of the 1984 D show what I would consider to be a typical
spectrum of a concert grand when a microphone is placed 11 inches above the
damper of F#4. However, those of the 1929 with the WAPIN showed an
abnormally sharp drop in the amplitude of the second and third partials of
the D3 test note. Furthermore, the 17th and 38th partials appear to be of
the same amplitude, and there is an increase of what appears to be about 30
dB from partials 33 to 38 (poor detail prevents accurate reading). These
are tones that are well above the fundamental of the highest note of the
piano. The Fletcher Munson curves (included) show the auditory response of
the human ear peaking around 4-kHz. When the Fletcher Munson curves are
applied to this spectrum, the subjective result is that overtones of D3
that are well above the highest note on the piano will sound
disproportionately loud to the ear. How can this be considered "Too good
to be true", as was suggested on the web site? Could this have had
anything to do with the voicing of the hammer of that particular unison
when that recording was made, or some other anomaly?
3. How does this relate to any change in the tone and/or decay rate of
unisons in the fifth octave and above?
COMMENT: Then I examined the 1929 Wapinized D in Cincinnati and compared
it with the 1984 a few years ago, I did like the 1929 better. The
sustaining quality in the upper octaves did sound better to me, and I said
so to Michael Wathen at the time. However, I could not determine if the
difference were because of the WAPIN, of simply a result of the total
rebuilding the piano had been given. I did not notice the peculiar
characteristic in note D3 that shows up in the web site spectrums.
COMMENT: The questions that some of us have recently reased have been good
questions, neither for nor against the WAPIN, but merely asking for more
scientifically acceptable data than those that have been presented. I just
read Otto Keyes November 5 post. His reference to posts such as mine as
"authority of ignorance" and "pigeon pooh" is off limits, does not belong
on this list, and I resent it.
COMMENT: Michael Wathen's disparaging remarks about the piano industry are
not very well received either, nor was I talking about subjective opinions.
I was talking about data that are supposed to show that the Wapin either
does or does not make a difference - data that in my opinion, show neither,
and leave the question wide open.
Sincerely, Jim Ellis
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC