Single vs. three string unisons

[Joel Rappaport]

Dave Porritt has and interesting observation that I have been wondering
about while following this subject.  Does a rubber mute absorb energy
from a hammer blow, or does it transform the muted string(s) into
immovable objects so that *all* of the hammer energy goes into the
unmuted string(s)?

If we make an assumption that a _rubber_ mute will not take on hammer
energy and a _felt_ mute, however, will absorb the energy - taking
energy away from the unmuted string(s) - maybe there is a measurable
difference.  Maybe the pitch level (not to mention energy output) of the
individual strings vs. the whole unison can be measured.  Has anyone
tried these tests with both kinds of mutes?

I use felt mutes made of hammer head material, cut and shaped
appropriately.  Of course, if the above assumption is not true, there is
always the <Delete> button up there.....

Joel Rappaport

David Porritt wrote:
>
> --snip
>
> > Dean observed that a given "hammer blow strength" might generate
> > greater amplitude in a single string  with the other two muted compared to
> > the amplitude of all three strings excited by an equal blow - that more of
> > the force of the blow would be focused on one string, and that this might
> > account for the pitch difference between single and three string unisons. I
> > think that is the most satisfctory explanation I have heard, but I don't see
> > why the SAT wouldn't pick it up.
>
> --snip
>
> The hammer is still striking 3 strings even when 2 are muted.  The energy
> is going in to all the strings, it's just that the energy from two of
> them is being dissipated by the mute.  I really think the 1 singing
> string doesn't get any more energy in either case.
>
> dave
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> David M. Porritt, RPT
> Meadows School of the Arts
> Southern Methodist University
> Dallas, Texas
> _______________________________________________