your punching comments

[David Love]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
I appreciate your comments and I wasn=92t trying to accuse anyone of
making things up.  I have a colleague who has some samples of the Wurzen
punchings and will loan them to me so that I can try it.  My experience
with the Baldwin, in which I was able to compare a =93hard landing=94 =
with a
soft one made me think about it.  This piano was very evenly voiced (by
me) and when I inserted a small group of punchings in the middle of an
octave so that I could test the tone in that octave I heard no
difference between the old and the new.  I could feel the difference,
but could not detect a change in tone.  I would have expected when
playing through the notes of that scale to hear a reduction in volume on
the notes that had received the softer punching.   I think I am a
skilled enough voicer to have heard a reduction of 5 or 10%.  While the
existing punchings were not the ones you speak of, if the reasoning for
the increased loudness is a harder landing, I would have expected the
same net effect.  That was the reason for my inquiry.  Now perhaps there
is a difference with the Wurzen punching that will not be produced by
the hardened or harder Baldwin punching.  I hope to find that out.  But
if so, at least from this small experiment, it seems that something else
might be at work.  Not being able to answer the engineering side of that
question myself as my background is in the visual arts, music,
psychology (and golf) I was interested in what that explanation might
be.   =20
=20
David Love
davidlovepianos@comcast.net=20
-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On
Behalf Of antares
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 3:13 AM
To: Pianotech
Subject: Re: your punching comments
=20

On 29-jan-05, at 4:49, David Love wrote:
I just want to revisit this for a minute.  While the greater preciseness
of the dip/aftertouch etc., makes sense, the see-saw analogy doesn=92t, =
at
least not on the surface.  It seems to me that the reason the child
bounces in the air when the see-saw comes to an abrupt halt is not
because the abrupt halt causes the child on the other end to accelerate
faster, rather it is because the abrupt halt causes separation between
the constantly accelerating child and the more rapidly de-accelerating
see-saw.  I would appreciate an engineering analysis considering not
only the flexibility of the key, but the flexibility of the hammer shank
as well and whether there is really adequate distance remaining between
the hammer and the string at the point at which the key bottoms out for
any real difference in acceleration of the hammer to occur, if any of
you engineers cares to offer one.=20


The fact that the touch and the sound changes after putting in a new
punching has, in my opinion, nothing to do with key and shank flex.=20
The mass and stiffness of especially the key is much too big for a small
item like this punching to get seriously influenced that much more and
the increase in sound is, after all, not really that dramatic. It is
there, but I would say that in most pianos it is an increase in loudness
of maybe 5 to 10 %.
I therefor remain convinced that it is the harder bounce, caused by a
firmer underground, that makes the tone louder , especially after
inserting the firmer punching because it of the firmer 'underground',
the more so, because an increase in loudness is already noticeable
during 'soft play'.
The small increase in sound is noticeable every time, but only if the
original punching is softer. When the original punching is equal in
firmness or even more firm (not to say hard), the loudness in tone will
decrease.
To me it seems obvious that when the sea saw comes down harder, the
child on the high end must hold on tighter to the bar on the sea saw
because of the reactionary forces.

But, I have in my feeble possessions only a swimming diploma, a driver's
license and a certificate which proves I attended the pianotech school
in Amsterdam, so of course it would be interesting to hear what a
'specialist' has to say about this, although it will not change the
opinion of all the technicians who were able to try out the firmer
punching.
Firmer is Firmer, and louder is louder.

As a bit of anecdotal evidence (for what it=92s worth) on this note, I
tuned and regulated a Baldwin today, medium grand with very firm white
punchings under the keys.  They were firm enough that I found the
feeling at the bottom of the stroke somewhat unpleasant.  After
regulating and voicing the piano I replaced a couple of the punchings
with newer softer ones as I carry a few (Pianotek pear green 7/8=94
diameter, fairly firm, medium thick 5.5 mm).  Not only did the new
punchings produce a key stroke that felt much nicer on the fingers with
no discernable sacrifice on the ability to accurately regulate the dip,
but the tone was unchanged.  Obviously, I=92m curious if this phenomenon
is real or imagined.  I might add that I do firmly believe in the
placebo effect and can see how a difference in the feel of the action
might contribute to a difference in perception of the tone, at least
from the player=92s perspective.  I don=92t imagine that the listener, =
not
being able to feel the bottom of the keystroke, would notice anything at
all. =20

I do not know the punchings you described, used by Baldwin, but if they
are very hard, I can easily imagine that a softer punching feels
nice(r). After all, a too hard landing is usually never a nice
experience, generally speaking (;
For that reason, we chose for elasticity with a certain firmness, and
the best choice is of course Wurzen felt, because that factory makes the
finest felt in the world because it has the highest felt homogeneity.
The firmness, caused by the density/homogeneity of the felt and,
especially, the natural elasticity caused by the high quality wool
fibers create a firmer touch than most punchings, without causing the
feeling of unpleasantness you described from the Baldwin punching.
I do not know the pear green punching you describe, so I am not able to
compare them, but in the opinion of our customers, and myself, there has
not been, yet, a conical punching like ours that makes for such a
precise after touch, and after touch is for me the most important issue
when it comes to fine regulation. Of course after touch is a flexible
issue, but on the other hand, it is not, as we are taking about 10ths of
a mm.
We also have received affirmative and rather positive responses, -
especially - form customers in the USA (see Dale Erwin's comment below),
which proves that the punching we sent them has some very special
qualities - unless one does not want to believe those comments.
In earlier posts, years ago, I have already described my experience with
the high quality Yamaha and Steinway punching and the fact that they too
are conical.=20
I heard this effect for the first time during the CP course in
Hamamatsu, where my teacher showed me the difference between a soft
punching and a Yamaha punching, and the - subtle - difference in tone
when you put the conical side below, instead of up (btw, there are
several kinds of Yamaha punching for several models).=20
I have had the very same experience at Steinway in Hamburg.
The fact that major factories have and use this knowledge, and that they
teach this to their trainees, also proves the value and knowledge of
using a specific, higher quality front punching.

The title of the email to which I react now said " Andres punching
tested".
I understand that your email was a reaction to somebody else's email,
but it now may seem as if you have tested my front punching, which, if I
read your message well, you have not done yet, so I would suggest to
you, if you allow me to say so, to test our new punching first, before
we go on with this conversation.
Because of the "Placebo effect" in general, but also because you
mentioned this effect here, I have time and again given the advice to :

"Listen carefully to a selected tone of an instrument (with softer
punching) and try to memorize the sound and especially the way it feels.
Remove the existing punching and put in the Wurzen felt one. Repeat the
listening and touch process, and repeat this a couple of times.
Most technicians (and pianists) get very excited and confused the very
first time, but, naturally, want to make sure that it is true what they
heard and felt, so it is best to change the punching repeatedly until
the difference is undoubted".

An open mind, neutrality, and professional experience will undoubtedly
give a fair answer.

Andr=E9 Oorebeek
Amsterdam
The Netherlands

Where 'music' is no harm can be




David Love
davidlovepianos@comcast.net

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On
Behalf Of antares
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 9:35 AM
To: Pianotech
Subject: Re: Andres punching tested

=20


On 13-jan-05, at 7:06, gordon stelter wrote:

Please explain the suspected mechanism behind tonal
change due to punching substitution.
G

=20


quote from me in another email to the list :

Well, that is a subtle issue but not hard to explain :
It is a matter of transferring energy.
If the upper surface of the front punching is the smallest, the transfer
of energy will be enhanced to the bottom more easily.
Suppose you strike a giant, non conical, front punching with your fist,
and you strike that front punching in the middle....
Part of the energy will be absorbed by the outermost sides of that very
same punching and the sides may even curl up a little.

Now you have a giant conical front punching, meaning that the upper
surface is smaller that the bottom side, and you again strike it in the
middle.
There is less mass on the upper side, so the transfer of energy to the
bottom is more direct.
That's the meaning of a conical punching.

Of course, the effect will be even stronger if the fabric of the front
punching is not soft, the way so many front punchings are, but instead
more dense and thus more firm.
That's the beauty of the front punching I described before : It is more
dense because it is made of very dense felt instead of woven fabric.
A more dense front punching allows for a more precise key depth. A more
precise key depth allows for a more precise regulation. A more precise
regulation allows for a more precise after touch. A more precise after
touch allows for a more precise hammer striking distance. A more defined
hammer striking distance allows for more energy, and more energy allows
for a better transfer of energy.
So there the circle is rounded : one of the smaller parts of our
actions, the front punching, plays actually a major role in the forming
and making of tone.
The making of tone is, in the end, what it is all about.

and:

A key is like a sea saw.
Usually, we find an old car tire under both sides of the sea saw to
soften the impact. Nevertheless, a little child sitting on the high end
of the sea saw will bump upwards slightly because of the impact at the
lower end.
Now, if we take away the tires, the impact will be much harder and it
will hurt the behind of the child coming down, but it will also cause
the other child to almost get airborne, because the force of the impact
is much stronger.
That is the an analogy in regard to a more firm front punching : It
causes a more intense transfer of energy and thereby creates a louder
tone.
Your regulation can be more precise, thereby giving you the maximum
tonal output.

unquote

If you need more info, mail me privately.

Andr=E9 Oorebeek




----- Original Message -----
From: Erwinspiano@aol.com
To: pianotech@ptg.org ; caut@ptg.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:58 PM
Subject: Andres punching tested


List
While putting the final hours on a newly bellied
D I did an experiment.
I had installed the usual Thick green punching
a while back prior to receiving the New Oorebeck
front rail punching's. So I listened to the sound of
F-4 carefully, checked the dip , then changed to the
new ones, checked the dip , played the note & the
sound suddenly came together with more power and
clarity than the first punching. The solidity under
my finger was firm and sure.
Thinking it to be an anomally I changed back
to the green ones. The Sound diminsihed & lacked
focus. Well ,I did this a bout three times on the
same note with the same result. I then checked a
bass note f-1 with the same effect.
I'd say the new puncing has a similar
beneficial yet cumulative effect much like to mating
& hammers to & leveling strings
I placed the green punching between two pieces
of thin maple & put a calipers on each side. The
compression with modest force would change easily as
much as .030. The white new punching only .010.
Considering all this, since the key is where
the power is generated it needs to have a precise
stopping moment. If not after touch can change to a
depth of .420 even with an initial dip setting of
.390 .(which is my preferred dip in Steinways
whenever possible.)
Think of the distance in excessive jack travel
especially on parts with a narrow window for jack
movement & also it's effect on slowing repitition
performance. With the white punchings a far more
dependable dip /touch can be assured.
Think of the improvement in SOUND Baby!!!!!!!!
I noticed no change in noise even though this
is a pressed felt & not woven.
I immediately changed the entire set & tomorrow
or Friday I'll have a chance to hear & feel the
whole piano.
Regards
Dale Erwin





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
_______________________________________________
pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives



friendly greetings
from
Andr=E9 Oorebeek

Vita Dura Est
Where 'music' is no harm can be

Andr=E9 Oorebeek
Amsterdam
The Netherlands

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/6c/06/58/1e/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--