Hello Phil,
some comments interposed below:
Phillip Ford wrote:
> >.....
> > Should the positioning of the hammer tail relative to the top of the
> >check be so critical as to induce as noticeable a change in sound as is
> >reported, then the conclusion seems inescapable that the sound would be
> >varying as checking does or not occur. I am not able to note, in my own
> >perception, to find such a correlation.
> > However, if this effect does exist, I would suggest that it occurs not
> >as result of energy being delivered to any signficant degree to the string
> >through a so-called pulse in the action, or the waveform output of the
> >soundboard being significantly modified by the checking, or by dragging the
> >tail on the check under particular conditions, but, rather as the result of
> >the well-known masking effect of noises in the action on the sound.
>
> I think all of these may be attempts to say the same thing. A
> 'pulse' in the action or a slight dragging of the tail may result in a
> different type or volume of noise produced by the action, which is giving
> this 'masking effect', as you call it.
I don't find creditable the idea that the tail could be dragging under any
conceivable, practical blow, on the check in a well regulated piano and believe
that good technicians are able to detect this with various tests, for example, as
I am sure you know, restraining the hammer and pressing down on the key in an
attempt to detect any dragging.
> I put that in quotes because it's
> not clear to me whether the action noise is in fact 'masking' the sound
> output from the strings or if in fact is an integral, and perhaps
> desirable, part of what we recognize as piano sound.
I believe that the impact noise produced by the hammer hitting the string, along
with the following sound produced by the vibrating string is what we are
conditioned to perceive as piano sound. String noise is indeed integral to this
sound. However, action noise, and particularly, keybed noise is variable
depending upon the touch of the pianist and is, in my opinion, a detriment
although, over the centuries, there have been many "pounders". I have forgotten
the name of the book by one of the sons of Johann Sebastian Bach but there is one
that exists wherein he complains exactly of this kind of noisiness.
Also, Joszef Gat, a piano professor at the famous piano conservatory in
Budapest published a book in the seventies in which he differentiates string
noise and keybed noise. However, he advocates various combinations of keybed
noise as a way to tone control something I personally disagree with, as I
indicated above, although he does suggest the importance of minimized keybed
noise generally.
> modifying the waveform output of the soundboard, it's also unclear to me
> whether this action noise is being heard directly (just something extra put
> on top of the sound coming from the soundboard, so to speak) or if this
> noise is traveling through the keybed, case, etc. to the soundboard and
> modifying the sound output from the soundboard. Or, perhaps more likely, a
> combination of both.
Personally, I believe it is heard directly as a kind of background noise
which degrades the sense of the actual soundboard output being formed through a
kind of gestalt process and that this explains its detrimental effect. When
this is added to the output of the string and board the immediate perception of
the harmonic aspect of the pitch is hindered.
>
> This perhaps has some bearing on keybed design. One of the
> primary functions of the keybed is obviously structural. It needs to
> provide a stable base for the keyboard. But it's also shuttling vibration
> to and from the soundboard and rim. I've always considered it a mark of a
> good piano that you can feel the vibration through the keys. This means
> that there has to be a good acoustical path from soundboard to key.
Perhaps so but couldn't this observation be made also with the proviso that
the system must produce enough acoustic energy that it is incidentally felt in
the keys just as a secondary consequence of the sound level being great enough?
As, for example, it is felt in the rim or other case parts. I don't think a
particularly efficient acoustic path is necessary myself.
t
> This
> is problematic if you want to minimize noise transmission from action to
> soundboard.
Indeed it is but I believe a more significant effect can be found in the
degree of noise of the keybed itself under impact, regardless of how well
connected acoustical to the soundboard it is. I believe the noise of the keybed
could be heard at essentially the same levels for a given impact, whether connect
to an acoustic path to the soundboad or not.
> If the path is good for vibrations coming from the soundboard,
> it's also presumably good for vibrations going to the soundboard. I
> suppose you can't have it both ways. If you want to minimize sound (noise)
> traveling from the action to the soundboard then you have to accept that
> you might not get much feel of the soundboard vibrations in the keys.
I think I agree with your last sentence here. The noisiness created by
driving the key violently onto the punching is varies according to the design of
the keybed. I believe, for example, that Steinway keybeds up until the 50's or
60's or so were much quieter than subsequent ones as I notice when playing later
ones the keybed sound is much more prominent, if allowed. Baldwin, has had a
noiser keybed than Steinway for decades, as, again in my opinion, I notice a
similar noisiness even on pianos from the 20's or so. I think the best companies
have paid attention years ago to this particular effect and tended to it. Over
time it, among and along with many other subtleties of design, too, has drifted
away.
>
>
> > I know
> >others disagree, but, in my opinion, the cleanest, best sound to be produced
> >as a result of things the pianist controls, is obtained by minimizing all
> >kinds of noises in the touch, particularly the thump at the end of the
> >keystroke....
> >.....Their analysis was that
> >touching the key in such a way made the difference which was exactly right,
> >although their concept of touching the key in certain characteristic ways
> >was incorrect and a misconception of the actual fact that the touch of the
> >pianist, however made, is superior acoustically if done in a fashion which
> >minimizes noise, particularly at the botton of the keystroke.
> > To evaluate this I made a listening device using a stethoscope with a
> >modified tube which enabled me to attach the pickup to the botton of the
> >keybed and listen while playing. One can easily hear a tremendous roar, for
> >example during a trill, or scales, if the pianist continously forces the
> >key violently onto the punching while playing.
>
> With regard to what you say here, it's interesting to me that Andre' is
> insistent that firm front rail punchings give the 'best' results (and they
> have to be Wurzen of course - perhaps he can chime in here - Andre', are
> you saying the firmer the better, or is there some optimum firmness?). I
> believe he is talking about a change in sound as a result of firm front
> punchings, not just a change of feel. Some of this obviously has to be a
> matter of taste. Perhaps Andre' likes a lot of noise ;-). It's also hard
> to separate the sound itself from the relationship of feel and sound to the
> pianist. Is a firm punching better because it results in more key landing
> 'noise'? Or is a firm punching better because it changes the way the
> pianist feels the sound being produced and therefore modifies the way he
> plays slightly to achieve the sound he wants, which results in less (or
> perhaps more) key landing 'noise'?
>
> >Possibly, as I said above,
> >the effect of the checking location, if real, contributes similarly,
> >although I am, as I said, skeptical mainly due to the fact that this would
> >imply a systematically varying tone correlated to whether or not the action
> >is take into check by the pianist. Checking does not occur all of the time,
> >or, very possibly, even half the time or less, when the action is being
> >operated by a pianist, in my opinion.
> > ...
> >Regards, Robin Hufford
>
> I agree that the action is not going into check much of the time. But, if
> I understand you correctly, you are saying that the sound effect of the
> check position, if any, is dependent on whether or not the action is going
> into check, and would thus be due to checking noise.
I thought the advocates of this observation were saying that it occured if
the check was adjusted so that it was 2mm below the tail when the shank was in
the drop position as a point of departure leading to the effect when checking
occured. Perhaps I misunderstood this but if this is to have an effect it seems
to me necessary that it must occur during checking hence my criticism. .
> I think this implies
> that if the checks were set up so that the action went into check less,
> then less checking noise would result and the sound would be 'better'. If
> this were the case, then it would seem that the lower the checks were set
> the better. But, as I understand it, the statement is that 2 mm below the
> tail is optimum, and either above this point or below this point is
> sub-optimum.
>
I understood that this point was optimum and all others less so but believe,
if there was indeed any effect, surely it would require checking to occur,
perhaps not.
Regards, Robin Hufford
>
> Phil Ford
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC