At 5:51 PM -0500 12/1/01, BobDavis88@AOL.COM wrote: >In a message dated 12/01/2001 2:15:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, >JD@Pianomaker.co.uk writes: > >> What DOES make a difference, however, is whipping the bottom ends. > >What difference, and why? I'm letting myself in for it here so I'll start off by admitting that the why of it is not clear to me and I've never seen an explanation. One day next year this is one of a lot of acoustical questions I hope to work at with a nearby university faculty. The best way to describe the effect is that it clarifies the tone and improves the attack -- it puts bones in the string. Speaking slightly more technically, it improves the harmonic relationships and discourages wild overtones. Probably the added weight near the soundboard bridge forces the string to favour the more desirable overtones. It must also have some effect on the inharmonicity of the string. All this is just intutition. I've mentioned this before and emphasized that it's not a fad of mine but the regular practice of Steinway, Bechstein, Blüthner, Erard and scores of German makers. There is no ergonomic reason for a stringmaker to whip the ends, though it's very little more bother, so these makers had good reason for continuing the practice. In the case of Steinway whipping however, the extra work involved is considerable, though I've never detected an audible difference between the two methods. Electronic listening would probably show a slight difference, since if anything the Steinway method has a greater stiffening effect on the whipped portion. I normally cut out the whipping at the transition to singles, but for special pianos and my own I use another method to add weight at the same point, again with good results. This involves running an inch or so of undercover close-wound over part of the flattening before spinning on the top cover. JD
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC