Thanks for sharing your methods, Fred. I got one of those five needle tools from Jurgen a while back, on your recommendation. Great voicing tool. And now this!
Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2021 17:20
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: sustain pedal engagement issue
The question is how hard the existing felt is, and that can be somewhat unpredictable, depending what it was like when new and what the environmental conditions have been. Dampers are something like hammers, in that the actual surface matters a lot to performance. Sometimes they start out fairly hard, sometimes moisture plays a role.
"The like" can include needling. I like to use thin needles close together, like in the 5 needle tool from Jahn/Pianoforte Supply, for the mono, bi and trichord in the "grooves" (where the strings have compacted), either along with sanding or as a substitute. For flats, it can include peeling - grab a very thin layer, as thin as you can manage to get old of, and pull it off. In the realm of 1 mm. That is for when the surface seems very smooth, like it has been ironed.
These are things I am more apt to do with older dampers, but there are times when they are appropriate for newer ones.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
Original Message:
Sent: 2/10/2021 1:45:00 PM
From: Alan Eder
Subject: RE: sustain pedal engagement issue
Fred,
Point taken about subtle fore/aft damper head stagger.
Also appreciate your consideration of the condition of the damper felt, and using sandpaper ("and the like...") to soften. If it comes to removing dampers, I'll definitely give this approach a go.
Two questions about that:
1) Would this work on relatively new, clean damper felt?
2) Please elaborate about what you mean by, "..and the like..."
Thanks for pursuing this further!
Alan
------------------------------
Alan Eder, RPT
Herb Alpert School of Music
California Institute of the Arts
Valencia, CA
661.904.6483
Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2021 11:40
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: sustain pedal engagement issue
A slight fore aft (or aft fore) progression can be very subtle, and is standard practice for many concert techs. It doesn't need to affect actual damper efficiency in terms of full shut off. It does, however, make the transition less abrupt, and makes "half/quarter/eighth" pedaling easier to do.
The main point of what is referred to as half pedaling is to clear a portion of the overall ring while still retaining a portion (as, for example, clearing treble and keeping some bass). If you can just touch down (graze the strings) with one of the two damper pads in a controlled way, this gives additional space between full and partial damping.
Controlled and subtle are the key words here, and everywhere when it comes to grand damping. Another factor might be just exactly how soft the surfaces of the damper felts are, which can be subltely increased with sandpaper and the like, again making the shut off a wee bit less abrupt.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
"A mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled." Plutarch
Original Message:
Sent: 2/10/2021 9:39:00 AM
From: Alan Eder
Subject: RE: sustain pedal engagement issue
Hi Fred,
Apologies for this belated response to your post, which somehow eluded me until now.
This client has already proved that she can sniff out inefficiencies in damping like an avalanche rescue dog can smell humans through yards of snow. So I am wary of mucking around with the fore/aft regulation of the damper heads in this particular situation (as mentioned in my OP), although it may be just the thing with another client.
Your point about the relative desirability of efficient damper cut-off is well-taken. Somehow, to me this subject seems like the yang to the ying of the quest for ever louder louds, and increased sustain. But I digress...
Alan
------------------------------
Alan Eder, RPT
Herb Alpert School of Music
California Institute of the Arts
Valencia, CA
661.904.6483
Original Message:
Sent: 02-09-2021 10:19
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: sustain pedal engagement issue
I would alter the bends at the heads, so that one side (fore or aft) touches down a bit before the other. Which of the two options? Choose by experimentation. A subtle change will create a subtle change. Touchy to make it consistent.
BTW, the best solution would be a 19th century piano, where the cutoff is less abrupt by design. Different felts, different general design. I was puzzled when I found that Montal (and various famous makers like Blüthner) continued to make over damper uprights into the mid and late 19th century. Designs to shut off very rapidly and completely had been developed since very early on, and Montal proudly exhibited one in the 1840s in which there were dampers fore and aft of the strings. So why did he make the over damper pianino I acquired as late as 1851, and continued to make them beyond? Why did Chickering make an over damper upright around 1859 (see the
"Lincoln" piano in the PTGF Museum)?
The answer lies in the dichotomy between wanting a sharp staccato AND a connectivity, at will. In playing my Montal pianino, once I got it up and working I found that it was much easier to play music of the period (eg Mendelssohn) so it "sounded right." All of those staccato marks for the low bass note, when followed by a leap to a chord, made sense: it didn't sound staccato, it rang. Trying to get a smooth and natural cutoff od sound on a modern piano requires tremendously sensitive pedaling technique, a kind of quiver and bounce to remove a little, then a little more, then shut off. (And then we get into the oink issue as well).
OTOH, the early German pianos like the Stein, and the early Stodart and Broadwood had very efficient wedge dampers between bichords. Far better for music where articulation and phrasing are prominent.
Original Message:
Sent: 2/9/2021 8:23:00 AM
From: Alan Eder
Subject: sustain pedal engagement issue
Greetings Lists,
A client with hyper-sensitivities is complaining that the sustain pedal on her Boston grand engages and disengages too abruptly. She would prefer that it more gradually transition from off to on, and on to off. If not for her extreme sensitivities, I might alter the efficiency of the damper cut-off by changing the "fore/aft" orientation of the damper heads. But because she so easily becomes preoccupied with extraneous sounds (the present complaint notwithstanding), that would likely be swapping one issue for another.
Any thoughts about how to thread this needle? Some ideas so far include (as usual, in order from least to most invasive/costly):
1) altering the angle at which her foot address the pedal (which would be simple, and readily reversible, and in which case the next question would be whether to raise the pedals--and the rest of the piano--relative to her heel, or effectively lower them by raising her heel, which would be my inclination), or;
2) someone not on these lists suggested shortening the length of the pedal rod, which would increase the amount of lost motion (which would both increase the amount of pedal movement before lifting the under levers, and make it so the foot is closer to horizontal at the moment of engagement), or;
3) altering the timing of the bass dampers vis a vis the tenor and lower treble dampers (in which case the question would be should the bass dampers lift sooner or later than the rest, and therefore come to rest before or after the rest?), or;
4) modifying the leverage of the trap work so there is more pedal movement in proportion to damper lift (in which case the questions would be how much and in which direction?) This would be the most invasive of these options, yet still reversible.
"Scars of experience" responses preferred, but sound speculation also welcome.
Thanks,
Alan
P. S.Please forgive me if this winds up posting twice. My first attempt appeared to be unsuccessful, so I reposted.
------------------------------
Alan Eder, RPT
Herb Alpert School of Music
California Institute of the Arts
Valencia, CA
661.904.6483
------------------------------