Voicing

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Concert Level Regulation and Preparation and Voicing .
-------------------------------------------
All,

I really like the consistency of the WNG backchecks. They are small and therefore offer a smaller target for the tail. However, it is difficult to do through the string voicing, especially long "Angel Shot" insertions. The tail will simply push through, and if you do get the needle in there is little resistance to remove it, so you must bring it to the strings to get the needle out. I spoke with Bruce Clark about it, and while he acknowledged the challenge, he didn't have a solution. Do any of you? Did I explain it well enough? Attached is a pic of a WNG part next to a standard backcheck.

Thanks!

Jim

-------------------------------------------
James Busby
Mt Pleasant UT
801-422-3400
-------------------------------------------

I think perhaps there are different takes on how a hammer is supported by a check for through the strings voicing. The way I have come to do it is to have the felt of the hammer (where it is connected to the molding, that spot) be supported by the top of the check. So when I press down on the hammer, I also let up a bit on the key so that the hammer easily slides through degrees of check until it reaches that point which is approximately the same position as the hammer at rest.

I used to "press through check" and found that it essentially always ended up at that same place if I was applying any pressure at all to insert the needle into the felt. I figure that forcing it through check down to that rest position is likely to upset the check regulation a bit, and especially using the Fazioli style (available from pianoforte supply) tool with the narrower shank, likely to bend the shank of the tool.

This is just seat of the pants, what I have evolved into doing. Curious what others do and how they approach this. (I haven't used any WNG checks, so can't really address the specific question, but I suspect the felt of the hammer would rest fine on the top of the WNG check).

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination." - Einstein
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 15:25
From: James Busby
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Concert Level Regulation and Preparation and Voicing .
-------------------------------------------
All,

I really like the consistency of the WNG backchecks. They are small and therefore offer a smaller target for the tail. However, it is difficult to do through the string voicing, especially long "Angel Shot" insertions. The tail will simply push through, and if you do get the needle in there is little resistance to remove it, so you must bring it to the strings to get the needle out. I spoke with Bruce Clark about it, and while he acknowledged the challenge, he didn't have a solution. Do any of you? Did I explain it well enough? Attached is a pic of a WNG part next to a standard backcheck.

Thanks!

Jim

-------------------------------------------
James Busby
Mt Pleasant UT
801-422-3400
-------------------------------------------

Perhaps this is a silly question but: Why are the Steinway back-checks so long?  When regulated properly with a properly arced hammer tail, the hammer only has a a centimeter or so of contact with the backcheck.  I haven't worked with the WNG backchecks either.  It makes sense that being shorter, reduces needless weight.

-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Piano Technician
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68588-0100
pwilliams4@unl.edu
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 15:39
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

I think perhaps there are different takes on how a hammer is supported by a check for through the strings voicing. The way I have come to do it is to have the felt of the hammer (where it is connected to the molding, that spot) be supported by the top of the check. So when I press down on the hammer, I also let up a bit on the key so that the hammer easily slides through degrees of check until it reaches that point which is approximately the same position as the hammer at rest.

I used to "press through check" and found that it essentially always ended up at that same place if I was applying any pressure at all to insert the needle into the felt. I figure that forcing it through check down to that rest position is likely to upset the check regulation a bit, and especially using the Fazioli style (available from pianoforte supply) tool with the narrower shank, likely to bend the shank of the tool.

This is just seat of the pants, what I have evolved into doing. Curious what others do and how they approach this. (I haven't used any WNG checks, so can't really address the specific question, but I suspect the felt of the hammer would rest fine on the top of the WNG check).

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination." - Einstein
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 15:25
From: James Busby
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Concert Level Regulation and Preparation and Voicing .
-------------------------------------------
All,

I really like the consistency of the WNG backchecks. They are small and therefore offer a smaller target for the tail. However, it is difficult to do through the string voicing, especially long "Angel Shot" insertions. The tail will simply push through, and if you do get the needle in there is little resistance to remove it, so you must bring it to the strings to get the needle out. I spoke with Bruce Clark about it, and while he acknowledged the challenge, he didn't have a solution. Do any of you? Did I explain it well enough? Attached is a pic of a WNG part next to a standard backcheck.

Thanks!

Jim

-------------------------------------------
James Busby
Mt Pleasant UT
801-422-3400
-------------------------------------------

Hi Paul,
Maybe Ed Foote's post answers that question. He says that it seems to be fairly critical exactly how high the WNG check is, and that discrepancies might cause malfunction. So maybe the answer is that a larger check provides more of a safety margin.

It is also possible that additional mass might be a plus in some way - not saying it is, just suggesting that, like with dampers, the mass of an object will affect how it behaves (it is struck by the hammer tail with a lot of force, and its own mass would affect that interaction, together with the springiness/stiffness of the wire).

It is easy to leap to the conclusion (like the WNG folks have done) that obviously all you need is this small design, and then it turns out that that isn't the whole story. There has been a fair amount of testing of these checks, but often it takes a few years before something shows up and becomes obvious - or maybe the people looking aren't looking at precisely the right place. Again, it certainly seems to be a good design at this point, and I am not trying to say that it isn't, just maintaining an open and healthily skeptical mind.

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination." - Einstein
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 15:53
From: Paul Williams
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

Perhaps this is a silly question but: Why are the Steinway back-checks so long?  When regulated properly with a properly arced hammer tail, the hammer only has a a centimeter or so of contact with the backcheck.  I haven't worked with the WNG backchecks either.  It makes sense that being shorter, reduces needless weight.

-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Piano Technician
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68588-0100
pwilliams4@unl.edu
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 15:39
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

I think perhaps there are different takes on how a hammer is supported by a check for through the strings voicing. The way I have come to do it is to have the felt of the hammer (where it is connected to the molding, that spot) be supported by the top of the check. So when I press down on the hammer, I also let up a bit on the key so that the hammer easily slides through degrees of check until it reaches that point which is approximately the same position as the hammer at rest.

I used to "press through check" and found that it essentially always ended up at that same place if I was applying any pressure at all to insert the needle into the felt. I figure that forcing it through check down to that rest position is likely to upset the check regulation a bit, and especially using the Fazioli style (available from pianoforte supply) tool with the narrower shank, likely to bend the shank of the tool.

This is just seat of the pants, what I have evolved into doing. Curious what others do and how they approach this. (I haven't used any WNG checks, so can't really address the specific question, but I suspect the felt of the hammer would rest fine on the top of the WNG check).

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination." - Einstein
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 15:25
From: James Busby
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Concert Level Regulation and Preparation and Voicing .
-------------------------------------------
All,

I really like the consistency of the WNG backchecks. They are small and therefore offer a smaller target for the tail. However, it is difficult to do through the string voicing, especially long "Angel Shot" insertions. The tail will simply push through, and if you do get the needle in there is little resistance to remove it, so you must bring it to the strings to get the needle out. I spoke with Bruce Clark about it, and while he acknowledged the challenge, he didn't have a solution. Do any of you? Did I explain it well enough? Attached is a pic of a WNG part next to a standard backcheck.

Thanks!

Jim

-------------------------------------------
James Busby
Mt Pleasant UT
801-422-3400
-------------------------------------------

Greetings, I found that the height is critical with these WNG back checks. If too high, they have to be too far distal to miss the hammer's last bit of swing. In this condition, the tail curvature isn't enough to increase pressure against the back check when pushed down, and it goes past the middle of the check and goes all the way down. If the back check is lowered, it provides a more postive stop to the hammer. Make sure that the top of the back check is at least even, and for me, ideally, a mm below the bottom of the tail when the hammer is on the string and the key is fully depressed. I have found that lowering the back checks 1-2 mm might lower the maximum height of check by that amount, but it greatly increases the resistance to allowing the hammer to be pushed downward. Since these backchecks seemingly can check the hammer almost at the string, if so desired, there is little cost to lowering the backcheck to improve its angle of approach to the hammer's arc. This really tightens up the checking. It also does a better job of keeping check distance the same, regardless of blow strength. It may contribute to a harder feel in these actions, though it may be my imagination. I think stopping the hammer with a longer sliding action would decrease the forces going back to the finger upon playing a note, but I can't measure that, at the moment. I am leave the hammer width the same width as the backcheck, since I am looking for maximum durability and the added surface area just has to correlate to more of it. I don't roughen the tails, but do use the WNG tailing jig and I am getting the best checking I have ever had. Regards, Ed Foote RPT http://www.piano-tuners.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
Original Message----- From: James Busby I really like the consistency of the WNG backchecks. They are small and therefore offer a smaller target for the tail. However, it is difficult to do through the string voicing, especially long "Angel Shot" insertions. The tail will simply push through, and if you do get the needle in there is little resistance to remove it, so you must bring it to the strings to get the needle out. I spoke with Bruce Clark about it, and while he acknowledged the challenge, he didn't have a solution. Do any of you? Did I explain it well enough? Attached is a pic of a WNG part next to a standard backcheck.

Ed, Fred,

I used the WNG jig and I too have the best checking ever. This system is the first I have ever seen that rarely needs any adjustment once set, and the real beauty of it is that it always checks, even with the softest blows! I may try lowering one slightly to see if that helps, although Bruce says I have it set the way he intended it to work. He said that if I adjust it any other way I would probably lose the benefits described above.

I use the method Fred uses, but still can't get it in a place where I can remove the needle. Every time you do a deeper stitch you must pull the hammer up to the string to pull the needle out. It's not at all like conventional through the string work. You can still do light work, but the "Angel Shots" are problematic. Maybe I need a third hand (tool) to hold it down.

Jim

-------------------------------------------
James Busby
Mt Pleasant UT
801-422-3400
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 16:15
From: Edward Foote
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

Greetings,
I found that the height is critical with these WNG back checks. If too high, they have to be too far distal to miss the hammer's last bit of swing. In this condition, the tail curvature isn't enough to increase pressure against the back check when pushed down, and it goes past the middle of the check and goes all the way down. If the back check is lowered, it provides a more postive stop to the hammer.
Make sure that the top of the back check is at least even, and for me, ideally, a mm below the bottom of the tail when the hammer is on the string and the key is fully depressed. I have found that lowering the back checks 1-2 mm might lower the maximum height of check by that amount, but it greatly increases the resistance to allowing the hammer to be pushed downward. Since these backchecks seemingly can check the hammer almost at the string, if so desired, there is little cost to lowering the backcheck to improve its angle of approach to the hammer's arc. This really tightens up the checking.


It also does a better job of keeping check distance the same, regardless of blow strength. It may contribute to a harder feel in these actions, though it may be my imagination. I think stopping the hammer with a longer sliding action would decrease the forces going back to the finger upon playing a note, but I can't measure that, at the moment. I am leave the hammer width the same width as the backcheck, since I am looking for maximum durability and the added surface area just has to correlate to more of it. I don't roughen the tails, but do use the WNG tailing jig and I am getting the best checking I have ever had.
Regards,


Ed Foote RPT
http://www.piano-tuners.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html

Jim, I just went and watched their video (while blowing some money on
their very slick capstans and keypins).

It all looks very well-thought-out and organized.

Since you're using their arcing jig, could you do me a favor? Find out the
radius of that swing to make the arc using the belt sander. It looks fairly
short. That is, from the pivot point to the part of the hammer tail
touching the sanding belt.

I've been using a jig made from Bill Spurlock's article, with a 2.5" radius,
and I noticed as soon as I did the first set, many years ago, that the checking
was almost identical at ANY blow, soft, medium, loud, very loud.

I'm wondering how close to 2.5" WN&G's radius is, and whether that might
account for checking at a nearly uniform height even at different dynamic levels.

I recently took an old hammer which I had saved (with my usual impractical
thrift) from my family's verdigris-infested 1934 Steinway A. Tracing the
hammer tail and using a compass, it appeared to have a 2" radius in
the area actually contacting the backcheck.

<thanks in advance>

-------------------------------------------
Susan Kline, RPT
Oregon State University, Newport Arts Center
Philomath, Oregon


-------------------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 19:19
From: James Busby
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

Ed, Fred,

I used the WNG jig and I too have the best checking ever. This system is the first I have ever seen that rarely needs any adjustment once set, and the real beauty of it is that it always checks, even with the softest blows! I may try lowering one slightly to see if that helps, although Bruce says I have it set the way he intended it to work. He said that if I adjust it any other way I would probably lose the benefits described above.

I use the method Fred uses, but still can't get it in a place where I can remove the needle. Every time you do a deeper stitch you must pull the hammer up to the string to pull the needle out. It's not at all like conventional through the string work. You can still do light work, but the "Angel Shots" are problematic. Maybe I need a third hand (tool) to hold it down.

Jim

-------------------------------------------
James Busby
Mt Pleasant UT
801-422-3400
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 16:15
From: Edward Foote
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

Greetings,
I found that the height is critical with these WNG back checks. If too high, they have to be too far distal to miss the hammer's last bit of swing. In this condition, the tail curvature isn't enough to increase pressure against the back check when pushed down, and it goes past the middle of the check and goes all the way down. If the back check is lowered, it provides a more postive stop to the hammer.
Make sure that the top of the back check is at least even, and for me, ideally, a mm below the bottom of the tail when the hammer is on the string and the key is fully depressed. I have found that lowering the back checks 1-2 mm might lower the maximum height of check by that amount, but it greatly increases the resistance to allowing the hammer to be pushed downward. Since these backchecks seemingly can check the hammer almost at the string, if so desired, there is little cost to lowering the backcheck to improve its angle of approach to the hammer's arc. This really tightens up the checking.


It also does a better job of keeping check distance the same, regardless of blow strength. It may contribute to a harder feel in these actions, though it may be my imagination. I think stopping the hammer with a longer sliding action would decrease the forces going back to the finger upon playing a note, but I can't measure that, at the moment. I am leave the hammer width the same width as the backcheck, since I am looking for maximum durability and the added surface area just has to correlate to more of it. I don't roughen the tails, but do use the WNG tailing jig and I am getting the best checking I have ever had.
Regards,


Ed Foote RPT
http://www.piano-tuners.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html

Hi Susan,

It's 2". I use the Spurlock jig too and even went to a 3" radius after a thread years ago. I think This is more than just the radius however. The small backcheck (very little window for error), the springiness of the wire, etc. is indeed very well thought out.

Regards,
Jim

-------------------------------------------
James Busby
Mt Pleasant UT
801-422-3400
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 20:16
From: Susan Kline
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

Jim, I just went and watched their video (while blowing some money on
their very slick capstans and keypins).

It all looks very well-thought-out and organized.

Since you're using their arcing jig, could you do me a favor? Find out the
radius of that swing to make the arc using the belt sander. It looks fairly
short. That is, from the pivot point to the part of the hammer tail
touching the sanding belt.

I've been using a jig made from Bill Spurlock's article, with a 2.5" radius,
and I noticed as soon as I did the first set, many years ago, that the checking
was almost identical at ANY blow, soft, medium, loud, very loud.

I'm wondering how close to 2.5" WN&G's radius is, and whether that might
account for checking at a nearly uniform height even at different dynamic levels.

I recently took an old hammer which I had saved (with my usual impractical
thrift) from my family's verdigris-infested 1934 Steinway A. Tracing the
hammer tail and using a compass, it appeared to have a 2" radius in
the area actually contacting the backcheck.

<thanks in advance>

-------------------------------------------
Susan Kline, RPT
Oregon State University, Newport Arts Center
Philomath, Oregon

Thanks, Jim. Very helpful. I agree that the springiness of the wire is important,
and I was glad to see that the drilling was on the diagonal.

-------------------------------------------
Susan Kline, RPT
Oregon State University, Newport Arts Center
Philomath, Oregon


-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 22:32
From: James Busby
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

Hi Susan,

It's 2". I use the Spurlock jig too and even went to a 3" radius after a thread years ago. I think This is more than just the radius however. The small backcheck (very little window for error), the springiness of the wire, etc. is indeed very well thought out.

Regards,
Jim

-------------------------------------------
James Busby
Mt Pleasant UT
801-422-3400
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 20:16
From: Susan Kline
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

Jim, I just went and watched their video (while blowing some money on
their very slick capstans and keypins).

It all looks very well-thought-out and organized.

Since you're using their arcing jig, could you do me a favor? Find out the
radius of that swing to make the arc using the belt sander. It looks fairly
short. That is, from the pivot point to the part of the hammer tail
touching the sanding belt.

I've been using a jig made from Bill Spurlock's article, with a 2.5" radius,
and I noticed as soon as I did the first set, many years ago, that the checking
was almost identical at ANY blow, soft, medium, loud, very loud.

I'm wondering how close to 2.5" WN&G's radius is, and whether that might
account for checking at a nearly uniform height even at different dynamic levels.

I recently took an old hammer which I had saved (with my usual impractical
thrift) from my family's verdigris-infested 1934 Steinway A. Tracing the
hammer tail and using a compass, it appeared to have a 2" radius in
the area actually contacting the backcheck.

<thanks in advance>

-------------------------------------------
Susan Kline, RPT
Oregon State University, Newport Arts Center
Philomath, Oregon

Susan, 

I don't have the jig in front of me at the moment, but another thing to consider is that the radius, while shorter, is not located on the shank centerline, unlike many other jigs.  The pivot is about 1/2 inch away from the shank toward the tail.


-------------------------------------------
Greg Graham, RPT
Brodheadsville, PA
-------------------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 20:16
From: Susan Kline
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

Since you're using their arcing jig, could you do me a favor? Find out the
radius of that swing to make the arc using the belt sander. It looks fairly
short. That is, from the pivot point to the part of the hammer tail
touching the sanding belt.

I've been using a jig made from Bill Spurlock's article, with a 2.5" radius,
and I noticed as soon as I did the first set, many years ago, that the checking
was almost identical at ANY blow, soft, medium, loud, very loud.


-------------------------------------------
Susan Kline, RPT
Oregon State University, Newport Arts Center
Philomath, Oregon


-------------------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 19:19
From: James Busby
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

Ed, Fred,

I used the WNG jig and I too have the best checking ever. This system is the first I have ever seen that rarely needs any adjustment once set, and the real beauty of it is that it always checks, even with the softest blows! I may try lowering one slightly to see if that helps, although Bruce says I have it set the way he intended it to work. He said that if I adjust it any other way I would probably lose the benefits described above.

I use the method Fred uses, but still can't get it in a place where I can remove the needle. Every time you do a deeper stitch you must pull the hammer up to the string to pull the needle out. It's not at all like conventional through the string work. You can still do light work, but the "Angel Shots" are problematic. Maybe I need a third hand (tool) to hold it down.

Jim

-------------------------------------------
James Busby
Mt Pleasant UT
801-422-3400
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 16:15
From: Edward Foote
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

Greetings,
I found that the height is critical with these WNG back checks. If too high, they have to be too far distal to miss the hammer's last bit of swing. In this condition, the tail curvature isn't enough to increase pressure against the back check when pushed down, and it goes past the middle of the check and goes all the way down. If the back check is lowered, it provides a more postive stop to the hammer.
Make sure that the top of the back check is at least even, and for me, ideally, a mm below the bottom of the tail when the hammer is on the string and the key is fully depressed. I have found that lowering the back checks 1-2 mm might lower the maximum height of check by that amount, but it greatly increases the resistance to allowing the hammer to be pushed downward. Since these backchecks seemingly can check the hammer almost at the string, if so desired, there is little cost to lowering the backcheck to improve its angle of approach to the hammer's arc. This really tightens up the checking.


It also does a better job of keeping check distance the same, regardless of blow strength. It may contribute to a harder feel in these actions, though it may be my imagination. I think stopping the hammer with a longer sliding action would decrease the forces going back to the finger upon playing a note, but I can't measure that, at the moment. I am leave the hammer width the same width as the backcheck, since I am looking for maximum durability and the added surface area just has to correlate to more of it. I don't roughen the tails, but do use the WNG tailing jig and I am getting the best checking I have ever had.
Regards,


Ed Foote RPT
http://www.piano-tuners.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html

Looking more carefully at Jim's original question, I see there is another issue with pulling the needle back out. I don't know the answer to that, though maybe when the hammer is down that far, with the check in contact with the widest part of the molding, it is held more positively. I should add that while I am pushing the hammer down (with the needle tool) I relax my pressure on the key, but once the hammer is down with its felt resting on top of the check, I press firmly on the key again. Don't know it that would help with WNG design.

I also do insertions close to the surface at a shallow angle, then additional ones in farther/deeper, rather than an initial insertion into denser felt, which may also help. If it is too hard to insert the needle, I don't, I back off and change angles and do multiple insertions, moving from the outside of the felt in.

I'll attach some photos in case the words aren't clear, about increasing angles. Three shots, a little exaggerated as to angle to make it clearer.

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination." - Einstein
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 15:25
From: James Busby
Subject: WNG backchecks and through the string voicing

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Concert Level Regulation and Preparation and Voicing .
-------------------------------------------
All,

I really like the consistency of the WNG backchecks. They are small and therefore offer a smaller target for the tail. However, it is difficult to do through the string voicing, especially long "Angel Shot" insertions. The tail will simply push through, and if you do get the needle in there is little resistance to remove it, so you must bring it to the strings to get the needle out. I spoke with Bruce Clark about it, and while he acknowledged the challenge, he didn't have a solution. Do any of you? Did I explain it well enough? Attached is a pic of a WNG part next to a standard backcheck.

Thanks!

Jim

-------------------------------------------
James Busby
Mt Pleasant UT
801-422-3400
-------------------------------------------