Before getting too bogged down in the semantics and scientific explanations I think it's worth discussing the phenomenon of what we hear. I think we agree that there is a percussive component to the tone. In the voicing process, for example, we are, among other things, finding some balance through hammer manipulation between the percussive attack and sustain phase. It's a delicate balance. If we either through the process of voicing or through the process of design reduce the attack phase below some threshold the piano will seem to lack adequate power at attack. If we leave the hammer too hard or are working with a soundboard that is insufficient in terms of its ability to mitigate the attack phase (for example an old, tired soundboard or, for that matter, one that is too light), we will have something that is too percussive and regardless of the sustaining capacity overall, we may have a hard time achieving the balance that we want. Some of these designs or executions that have tremendous sustain but don't tolerate hard hammers are a good example. While excessive percussion may manifest itself as a "knock" in the upper end of the piano it may be more of a "whump" in the lower part of the piano. Mushing out the hammer by choosing a very soft hammer to begin with or heavy needling, can reduce that percussive quality but it can also result in something less than we might want in terms of overall balance. So can building a soundboard that is too heavy. While I wouldn't say that we want to maximize the percussive/chaotic attack wave form, I would say that we want to optimize it in terms of the balance between attack and sustain. A piano which maximizes the sustain phase at too much of a cost at the attack phase will not be satisfying for the player either. It may please us, the technicians, for whom the sustain phase provides more utility (for example in the process of tuning), but it isn't necessarily more musical in the pianistic sense where some level of percussion is desired and in many respects required. How this relates to bridge location is a slightly different and more complicated issue, clearly, but since the quality of the percussive part of the tonal envelope can be influenced by, among other things, where the bridge connects to the soundboard and the overall structure of the board generally, it seems like it's worth considering whether centrally locating the bridge is, in fact, desirable. Moreover, since soundboards tend to be most flexible in the center and less so as you move toward the rim, then is it worth considering that the dumping of energy is more likely to happen more quickly when the bridge is centered than when it isn't? David Love www.davidlovepianos.com From: Delwin D Fandrich [mailto:del at fandrichpiano.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:34 PM To: davidlovepianos at comcast.net; pianotech at ptg.org Subject: RE: [pianotech] David Love--Centering the bridge--was S&S something er other Well, there is a percussive component to piano tone generation; I don't know about a "drum" component. We don't normally try to strike the soundboard panel with a mallet to generate sound. I know this is an idea that seems to be gaining traction with some modern "composers" but that is not how the piano was originally conceived. There are two parts to the percussive component of piano sound, or tone. The most obvious is the hammer "knocking" sound heard in roughly the upper third of the piano's compass. This sound comes as a direct result of the hammer impacting the strings close to the V-Bar and is primarily generated by motions within the plate itself. The other is the chaotic impact waveform created in the string immediately on hammer impact and before a coherent oscillating waveform is created. Some energy from this waveform is coupled to the soundboard assembly through the bridges. The sound we hear is still created by the soundboard assembly just as is the continuing tone from the oscillating string(s). We don't generally design the soundboard assembly to optimize the initial percussive/chaotic attack waveform. At least I don't. ddf Delwin D Fandrich Piano Design & Fabrication 6939 Foothill Court SW, Olympia, Washington 98512 USA Phone 360.515.0119 - Cell 360.388.6525 del at fandrichpiano.com <mailto:del at fandrichpiano.com> - ddfandrich at gmail.com From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:22 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] David Love--Centering the bridge--was S&S something er other Ok. But there is a drum component to piano tone generation. The initial attack sound is, by the nature of how we describe it, percussive and sets the board in motion from where it continues to be driven by the vibrating string. But that attack has its own drum like quality separate from the sound produced by the driving string. Thus the difference between plucked and struck tone. Doesn't it make sense that the quality of the percussive attack is influenced by the location of the bridge in proximity to the rim not to mention the size and structure of the soundboard itself? David Love www.davidlovepianos.com (sent from bb) _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20120523/6d2340fa/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC