The old Bluthner grands with the patent action used a thin nameboard felt punching on top of a regular one, and Pleyel used two thin punchings to attain the thickness of the usual punchings. The Bluthner method reduces the noise considerably. They also used punchings of a raglike material instead of paper Bluthner were quite obviously obsessed with making the action quiet. The back rail and hammer rail are covered with multiple thicknesses. Ted Sambell ________________________________ From: Jim Busby <jim_busby at byu.edu> To: Mark Wisner <mjwisner at mindspring.com>; "caut at ptg.org" <caut at ptg.org> Sent: Thu, December 16, 2010 12:51:42 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Crescendo punchings Mark, Are the firmer punchings for better regulation/control? If so, then surely they would do the same on a smaller piano, but the noise is too much, hence the compromise to less firm/less noisy. Is that what I'm to understand? Thanks! Jim Busby BYU -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Mark Wisner Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 9:06 AM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Crescendo punchings Not all punchings ARE created equal. Back when I worked for the other Japanese piano manufacturer, we used, and stocked, a firmer (less compressible) set of punchings for the 9 foot grands. These punchings for the 9's transmitted more action noise and so were considered too noisy for pianos not on the stage. All other models used a softer type. Perhaps this practice is more common than I thought Mark Wisner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20101216/a2bee91d/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC