Hi, David,
On 6/14/2018 5:41 AM, David Love via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
> Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login.
>
> Horace
>
> That's odd. I see a picture imbeded in my original post.
OK...since I don't usually read this list via the HL site, that's
probably the issue. I'll check there. Thanks!
> Here again is the illustration.
>I also wanted to add that a very careful prevoicing routine, including and especially string leveling and hammer mating, is essential.
Yes, precisely so. If this kind of prevoicing is not properly done,
anything that is done to/with the hammers will, at best, not do any
damage. All of these kinds of procedures go to getting the instrument
properly set up to the point that it is possible to do any "real"
voicing, at all.
Thanks again, David.
Kind regards.
Horace
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> David Love RPT
>
www.davidlovepianos.com>
davidlovepianos@comcast.net> 415 407 8320
> ------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------
> Original Message:
> Sent: 06-14-2018 03:33
> From: Horace Greeley
> Subject: Voicing
>
> Hi, David,
>
> I agree with everything you've said here.
>
> And, for whatever reason, I don't see any pictures. Is there another
> post in this thread to which you've attached pictures?
>
> Thanks very much.
>
> Kind regards.
>
> Horace
>
> On 6/13/2018 11:09 PM, David Love via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
>> Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login.
>>
>> The Oorebeck Model won't work on a Steinway lacquered hammer. Steinway hammers already have too flexible a cushion in the shoulders and the hammers collapse too much at the crown which can make them sound lifeless because they are damping too much energy. If the hammers have a crusty surface on the strike point because of the type of lacquering that was done yet are still soft underneath then you can have a weird combination of a bright and "pingy" attack but with no foundation to the hammer so you don't really get any dynamic development with harder playing. The same thing can happen with this type of hammer when all you do is put a couple of drops of lacquer on the crown without firming the foundation, so I don't recommend that. So these hammers are need the complete opposite of what the Oorebeck method prescribes. They need a firming up of the shoulders and area beneath the crown whereas the Renner type of hammers need an opening of the hammer. Think of it this way.
>>
>>
>> The ideal hammer is a non linear spring that gets stiffer as it is compressed as pictured on the left. Like a healthy shock absorber this spring is open enough to cushion the impact without bottoming out but not opened so much that the spring is mushy (left).
>>
>> The Oorebeck voicing method (similar to Baldassin Renner method or any other Renner style procedure) is meant to address hammers that come out like the one pictured in the center. The spring is too tight and there's no room for it to compress. The tone will be hard because there's no give in the hammer and the hammer cannot absorb enough energy to avoid an excess being delivered to the string. By needling in the lower and upper shoulders you allow the felt to release its tension and the spring to open up. The methods of doing this are similar with all hammers of this type (even though there are some slight variations in method they all aim to accomplish the same thing) but some hammers do not open up the same way with the same needling procedures. Quality Renner hammers will generally release fairly well with needling in the 9 - 11:30, 12:30 - 3:00 range. Many Abel hammers do not release as well and require more stitches, especially in the high shoulder (10:30 - 11:45, 12:15
> -
>> 1:30). Often the final stitches will need to enter very near the strike point with the needles angled outward aimed at the staple on the same side followed by shallow needling directly on the crown (sugar coating).
>>
>> Steinway style hammers (as pictured on the right) have a spring that is too open and require stiffening or solidifying at the base of the spring (lacquer adds both stiffness and density). You can see from this picture that if you only harden the top of the hammer the supporting structure is still too weak and the hammer will collapse when pushed. In that case you can get a funny reverse dynamic where a soft blow can be bright but as you increase the force of the blow the hammer gets darker as the crown of the hammer is buried by the collapsing spring.
>>
>> Since I don't know what has happened to this hammer (or whether I would interpret what you are hearing the same way as you are) it's hard to make a specific recommendation but my guess is that the spring is too open and that the surface is crusty from your description. In person I might have a different opinion.
>>
>> If that's the case the easy way to find out is to shallow needle the crown of the hammer and see if the tone just completely dies and becomes dull. If it does that means that the crown was hard but the foundation of the hammer was soft. The solution is to use lacquer to bolster the area of the hammer where the spring is pictured. You do that by a full saturation of the hammer, or certainly a saturation of the hammer underneath the strike point.
>>
>> Remember your goal is the hammer on the left. A less stiff spring at the top getting stiffer the deeper you go deeper into the hammer while maintaining as much as possible a resilient hammer--something which is contrary to the effects of lacquer generally. The resilient hammer will spring back to regain its original shape more quickly. Not only is that springing back necessary for voicing stability but the faster the hammer springs back the faster the hammer leaves the string (there are some articles on the behavior of springs which I can point you to if interested to explain that).
>>
>> Because of that I like to use a lacquer that remains somewhat "rubbery" when it cures. Off the shelf lacquers, sanding sealers or even shellac will not do that, they become brittle which not only makes the fiber brittle, keeping it from easily regaining its original form after it is compressed, but it will slow what's called the coefficient of restitution (COR--the spring's efficiency in regaining its original shape). So I use (as I've mentioned in other posts on the subject) the lacquer that is sold by Pianotek called Pianolac which is made without the additives that harden lacquer to a state suitable to protect table tops but not best for stiffening felt while keeping it somewhat flexible.
>>
>> The net effect of a non resilient hammer, one with a low COR, is that it rebounds off the string slower and in so doing filters (or damps) the higher partials. Recall that if the hammer string contact time is >= the period of the fundamental frequency, that frequency will be eliminated entirely. You don't want that in the treble section of the piano especially where the hammer string contact time is very close to the period of the fundamental under the best of circumstances.
>>
>> Other things can contribute to that damping including hammer mass, especially in the "killer octave" area. Often people will but drops of lacquer on the crown in that area to boost what is otherwise a dull section because the hammers are too heavy (and often too soft as well). As I mentioned earlier, that can make the section pingy and bright at low dynamic levels but when the hammer is over compressed it will choke the sound and the tone will lack clarity.
>>
>> You can experiment with that by swapping hammers from higher in the piano. For example, take C5 hammer and put it at C4 or the C6 hammer and put it at C5. If those hammers are different size (they should be) you will hear a difference. Experiment with hammers even higher in the range, take G6 hammer and put it at C5, for example, and see what happens. Reducing mass in the treble section is almost always a benefit. With lacquered hammers you can usually alter the shape of the hammers by removing material from the shoulders with total impunity. Don't do that with a Renner hammer or you will destroy the tension and structure of the hammer. Abel hammers are more tolerant of shape alterations (probably for the same reason that they don't react as well to shoulder needling), depending on which hammer, but I prefer not to do that with those either. I believe that is owning to differences in how the fiber is integrated and how reactive the overall hammer is. A well integrated
> hammer
>> will react away from the point of entry of the needles because the fibers maintain a strong interconnection to the other fibers in the hammer. But that is another discussion.
>>
>> Of course, pianos can sound choked for other reasons, soundboard characteristics, too much downbearing, changes in the scaling to higher tensions, or a hammer that is too hard and too heavy on a lightweight soundboard and string assembly especially on an old and tired board (or a new and tired one). If this is a rebuilt piano then it would be good to know more about it. However, those commenting that this must be an L might recall that NY Steinway went back to manufacturing the O and ceased production on the L a few years ago. So this could well be a 2-year-old Model O.
>>
>> Let me know what you find.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> David Love RPT
>>
www.davidlovepianos.com <http://www.davidlovepianos.com>
>>
davidlovepianos@comcast.net <
davidlovepianos@comcast.net>
>> 415 407 8320
>> ------------------------------
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Original Message:
>> Sent: 06-13-2018 09:44
>> From: Sheffey Gregory
>> Subject: Voicing
>>
>> Peter & David,
>> Thanks for your responses.
>> Peter - I'm attempting to follow the Oorebeck model, where he does that after needling the "cushion". Several others do the string work 1st, since it is less than 2 yrs old, I was hoping to do the needling 1st. I'll be back Friday and try what you suggest.
>> David - very minimal experience with lacquer. I have resisted doing any lacquering on this piano because of that and the fact that the tone is already rather bright. The hammers only have the factory lacquering, and do seem somewhat soft. "Swallowed up" would work, it doesn't have much "life" - generally the tone is bright enough, if not too bright. In octaves 5 & 6 even the music teacher noticed the "choked" quality. I'll see if I can go by there before Friday and get some pictures.
>> Thanks you both.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Sheffey Gregory, RPT
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Original Message:
>> Sent: 06-13-2018 08:59
>> From: David Love
>> Subject: Voicing
>>
>> How much experience do you have with lacquer?
>>
>> Needling the shoulders won't help with a Steinway hammers. You say choked from C3 up that's pretty much the entire long bridge. While it's hard to know what you mean by choked exactly since you report good sustain I assume you mean that the tone is a bit swallowed up, lacks clarity. On that piano that's most likely because the hammers are too soft or too bulky or both. I'd like to see a picture of the hammers with some measurements of the strikepoint to molding distance on a few sample notes, 30, 40, 50. 60.
>>
>> Start there.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> David Love RPT
>>
www.davidlovepianos.com <http://www.davidlovepianos.com>
>>
davidlovepianos@comcast.net <
davidlovepianos@comcast.net>
>> 415 407 8320
>>
>> Original Message:
>> Sent: 06-11-2018 18:24
>> From: Sheffey Gregory
>> Subject: Voicing
>>
>> I only get to do a "complete" voicing about once a year, if that. I am currently working on a Steinway model O that is about 2 years old. To my ear from C3 up it has a "choked" sound. I have Not applied any hardener [lacquer or otherwise]. Sustain is OK, some notes have a decent gradient of tone. What has worked for me in the past for a "choked" sound is needling at 9 to 11. This time that made things worse instead of better. Any Ideas why ? Suggestions to resolve this?
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Sheffey Gregory, RPT
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Reply to Sender :
http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&SenderKey=c6bec9da-82ac-413c-b761-8ffbb84d2e9a&MID=690549&MDATE=756%253d45%253b469&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved <http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&SenderKey=c6bec9da-82ac-413c-b761-8ffbb84d2e9a&MID=690549&MDATE=756%253d45%253b469&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved>
>>
>> Reply to Discussion :
http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&MID=690549&MDATE=756%253d45%253b469&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved <http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&MID=690549&MDATE=756%253d45%253b469&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved>
>>
>>
>>
>> You are subscribed to "Pianotech" as
hgreeley@sonic.net <
hgreeley@sonic.net>. To change your subscriptions, go to
http://my.ptg.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions&MDATE=756%253d45%253b469&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved. <http://my.ptg.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions&MDATE=756%253d45%253b469&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved.> To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to
http://my.ptg.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved&GroupKey=2bb4ebe8-4dba-4640-ae67-111903beaddf. <http://my.ptg.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved&GroupKey=2bb4ebe8-4dba-4640-ae67-111903beaddf.>
>>
>
>
> Original Message------
>
> The Oorebeek method won't work on a Steinway lacquered hammer. Steinway hammers already have too flexible a cushion in the shoulders and the hammers collapse too much at the crown which can make them sound lifeless because they are damping too much energy. If the hammers have a crusty surface on the strike point because of the type of lacquering that was done yet are still soft underneath then you can have a weird combination of a bright and "pingy" attack but with no foundation to the hammer so you don't really get any dynamic development with harder playing. The same thing can happen with this type of hammer when all you do is put a couple of drops of lacquer on the crown without firming the foundation, so I don't recommend that. So these hammers will likely need the complete opposite of what the Oorebeek method prescribes. They need a firming up of the shoulders and area beneath the crown whereas the Renner type of hammers need an opening of the hammer. Think of it this way.
>
> © Illustration from presentation "Structural Voicing" by David Love, all rights reserved
>
>
> The ideal hammer is a non linear spring (actually all hammers are non-linear springs) that gets stiffer as it is compressed as pictured on the left. Like a healthy shock absorber, this spring is open enough to cushion the impact without bottoming out but not opened so much that the spring is mushy (like the one on the right).
>
> The Oorebeek voicing method (similar to Baldassin Renner method or any other Renner style procedure) is meant to address hammers that come out like the one pictured in the center. The spring is too tight and there's no room for it to compress. The tone will be hard because there's no give in the hammer and the hammer cannot absorb enough energy to avoid an excess being delivered to the string. By needling in the lower and upper shoulders you allow the felt to release its tension and the spring to open up. The methods of doing this are similar with all hammers of this type (even though there are some slight variations in method they all aim to accomplish the same thing) but some hammers do not open up the same way with the same needling procedures. Quality Renner hammers will generally release fairly well with needling in the 9 - 11:30, 12:30 - 3:00 range. Many Abel hammers do not release as well and require more stitches, especially in the high shoulder (10:30 - 11:45, 12:15 -
> 1:30). On those hammers often the final stitches will need to enter very near the strike point with the needles angled outward aimed at the staple on the same side followed by shallow needling directly on the crown (sugar coating).
>
> Steinway style hammers (as pictured on the right) have a spring that is too open and require stiffening or solidifying at the base of the spring (lacquer adds both stiffness and density). You can see from this picture that if you only harden the top of the hammer the supporting structure is still too weak and the hammer will collapse when compressed. In that case you can get a funny reverse dynamic where a soft blow can be bright but as you increase the force of the blow the hammer gets darker as the crown of the hammer is buried by the collapsing spring.
>
> Since I don't know what has happened to these hammers (or whether I would interpret what you are hearing the same way as you are) it's hard to make a specific recommendation but my guess is that the spring is too open and that the surface is crusty from your description. In person I might have a different opinion.
>
> If that's the case the easy way to find out is to shallow needle the crown of the hammer and see if the tone just completely dies and becomes dull. If it does that means that the crown was hard but the foundation of the hammer was soft. The solution is to use lacquer to bolster the area of the hammer where the spring is pictured. You do that by a full saturation of the hammer, or certainly a saturation of the hammer underneath the strike point.
>
> Remember your goal is the hammer on the left. A less stiff spring at the top getting stiffer the deeper you go deeper into the hammer while maintaining as much as possible a resilient hammer--something which is contrary to the effects of lacquer generally. The resilient hammer will spring back to regain its original shape more quickly. Not only is that springing back necessary for voicing stability but the faster the hammer springs back the faster the hammer leaves the string (there are some articles on the behavior of springs which I can point you to if interested to explain that).
>
> Because of that I like to use a lacquer that remains somewhat "rubbery" when it cures. Off the shelf lacquers, sanding sealers or even shellac will not do that, they become brittle which not only makes the fiber brittle, keeping it from easily regaining its original form after it is compressed, but it will slow what's called the coefficient of restitution (COR--the spring's efficiency in regaining its original shape). So I use (as I've mentioned in other posts on the subject) the lacquer that is sold by Pianotek called Pianolac which is made without the additives that harden lacquer to a state suitable to protect table tops but not best for stiffening felt while keeping it somewhat flexible.
>
> The net effect of a non resilient hammer, one with a low COR, is that it rebounds off the string slower and in so doing filters (or damps) the higher partials. Recall that if the hammer string contact time is >= the period of the fundamental frequency, that frequency will be eliminated entirely. You don't want that in the treble section of the piano especially where the hammer string contact time is very close to the period of the fundamental already.
>
> Other things can contribute to that damping including hammer mass, especially in the "killer octave" area. Often people will but drops of lacquer on the crown in that area to boost what is otherwise a dull section because the hammers are too heavy (and often too soft as well). As I mentioned earlier, that can make the section pingy and bright at low dynamic levels but when the hammer is over compressed it will choke the sound and the tone will lack clarity. (Can you tell I'm not a fan of that method?)
>
> You can experiment by swapping hammers from higher in the piano. For example, take C5 hammer and put it at C4 or the C6 hammer and put it at C5. If those hammers are different size (they should be) you will hear a difference. Experiment with hammers even higher in the range. Take G6 hammer and put it at C5, for example, and see what happens. Reducing mass in the treble section is almost always a benefit. With lacquered hammers you can usually alter the shape of the hammers by removing material from the shoulders with total impunity. Don't do that with a Renner hammer or you will destroy the tension and structure of the hammer. Abel hammers are more tolerant of shape alterations (probably for the same reason that they don't react as well to shoulder needling), depending on which hammer, but I prefer not to do that with those either. I believe that is owning to differences in how the fiber is integrated and how reactive the overall hammer is. A well integrated hammer will
> react away from the point of entry of the needles because the fibers maintain a strong interconnection to the other fibers in the hammer. But that is another discussion.
>
> Of course, pianos can sound choked for other reasons, soundboard characteristics, too much downbearing, changes in the scaling to higher tensions, or a hammer that is too hard and too heavy on a lightweight soundboard and string assembly especially on an old and tired board (or a new and tired one). If this is a rebuilt piano then it would be good to know more about it. However, those commenting that this must be an L might recall that NY Steinway went back to manufacturing the O and ceased production on the L a few years ago. So this could well be a 2-year-old Model O.
>
> Let me know what you find.
>
> Many interruptions in writing this so forgive any non sequiturs, redundancies or typos. I did the best I could.
>
> ------------------------------
> David Love RPT
>
www.davidlovepianos.com <http://www.davidlovepianos.com>
>
davidlovepianos@comcast.net> 415 407 8320
> ------------------------------
>
> Original Message:
> Sent: 06-13-2018 09:44
> From: Sheffey Gregory
> Subject: Voicing
>
> Peter & David,
> Thanks for your responses.
> Peter - I'm attempting to follow the Oorebeck model, where he does that after needling the "cushion". Several others do the string work 1st, since it is less than 2 yrs old, I was hoping to do the needling 1st. I'll be back Friday and try what you suggest.
> David - very minimal experience with lacquer. I have resisted doing any lacquering on this piano because of that and the fact that the tone is already rather bright. The hammers only have the factory lacquering, and do seem somewhat soft. "Swallowed up" would work, it doesn't have much "life" - generally the tone is bright enough, if not too bright. In octaves 5 & 6 even the music teacher noticed the "choked" quality. I'll see if I can go by there before Friday and get some pictures.
> Thanks you both.
>
> ------------------------------
> Sheffey Gregory, RPT
>
> Original Message:
> Sent: 06-13-2018 08:59
> From: David Love
> Subject: Voicing
>
> How much experience do you have with lacquer?
>
> Needling the shoulders won't help with a Steinway hammers. You say choked from C3 up that's pretty much the entire long bridge. While it's hard to know what you mean by choked exactly since you report good sustain I assume you mean that the tone is a bit swallowed up, lacks clarity. On that piano that's most likely because the hammers are too soft or too bulky or both. I'd like to see a picture of the hammers with some measurements of the strikepoint to molding distance on a few sample notes, 30, 40, 50. 60.
>
> Start there.
>
> ------------------------------
> David Love RPT
>
www.davidlovepianos.com <http://www.davidlovepianos.com>
>
davidlovepianos@comcast.net <
davidlovepianos@comcast.net>
> 415 407 8320
>
> Original Message:
> Sent: 06-11-2018 18:24
> From: Sheffey Gregory
> Subject: Voicing
>
> I only get to do a "complete" voicing about once a year, if that. I am currently working on a Steinway model O that is about 2 years old. To my ear from C3 up it has a "choked" sound. I have Not applied any hardener [lacquer or otherwise]. Sustain is OK, some notes have a decent gradient of tone. What has worked for me in the past for a "choked" sound is needling at 9 to 11. This time that made things worse instead of better. Any Ideas why ? Suggestions to resolve this?
> Thanks in advance,
>
> ------------------------------
> Sheffey Gregory, RPT
> ------------------------------
>
> Reply to Sender :
http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&SenderKey=c6bec9da-82ac-413c-b761-8ffbb84d2e9a&MID=690554&MDATE=756%253d45%253b469&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved>
> Reply to Discussion :
http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=43&MID=690554&MDATE=756%253d45%253b469&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved>
>
>
> You are subscribed to "Pianotech" as
hgreeley@sonic.net. To change your subscriptions, go to
http://my.ptg.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions&MDATE=756%253d45%253b469&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to
http://my.ptg.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved&GroupKey=2bb4ebe8-4dba-4640-ae67-111903beaddf.>
Original Message------
Horace
That's odd. I see a picture imbeded in my original post. Let me know if you can see this.
Here again is the illustration. I also wanted to add that a very careful prevoicing routine, including and especially string leveling and hammer mating, is essential.
(BTW Horace, I made several edits after the version you read and responded to so you might want to check again my original posting which has now been updated)
© Illustration from presentation "Structural Voicing" by David Love, all rights reserved
------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-14-2018 03:33
From: Horace Greeley
Subject: Voicing
Hi, David,
I agree with everything you've said here.
And, for whatever reason, I don't see any pictures. Is there another
post in this thread to which you've attached pictures?
Thanks very much.
Kind regards.