Pianotech

Expand all | Collapse all

Reshaping the capo bar in situ

  • 1.  Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-22-2014 18:51
    I've run into this problem not infrequently over the years.  Poor termination in the 1st capo section creating lots of noise, lack of clarity, falseness, weakened tone, etc.  The piano in question here was a Steinway B c1998.  Attempts to clean up this section prior to my arrival included glue on the front duplex section (the idea being to detune it by adding mass), and felt inserts which quiet it but also kill it.  Best option, I decided, was to restring the section and reshape the cap bar in the process.  

    Basic Procedure  

    1. Remove dampers
    2.  Equipment needed:  Mirror about 6" x 18" (or thereabouts), mill files (medium cut), wide black felt tip pen, portable lighting to insert into action cavity, damper underlever height platform, wax, stringing materials and tools, etc..
    3. Turn the pins counterclockwise about 1.5 turns and remove strings.  I then proceeded to make the tuning pin heights somewhat uniform (they weren't) so that when I replaced the strings they would be reasonable close to level.  Better to err on the side of too high than too low as you can always tap the pins down if they are too high.  It's a pain to uncouple the strings and back the pins out if they are too low. 
    4. Lay the mirror under the capo bar on the key bed and position lighting in the action cavity to illuminate the bottom of the capo bar.  Using the wide felt tip pen mark the edge of the "v" black so you can see what it is you are removing and not removing. 
    5.  Using the files begin to remove material observing what you are doing in the mirror on the keybed.  Maintain a consistent angle with the files on both sides of the v-bar and work slowly to reduce the width of the ever narrowing black line.   Angle is probably about 30 degrees +/-.   I take the line down to about the width of a fine tipped pen, about the same as this font. 
    6.  Once you get the line a consistent thickness all the way across, take some 400 paper and shoeshine the V to clean up the string cuts that are there.  Then mark the v-bar again with the felt pen and recapture your uniform and thin black line. 
    7.  Shoeshine the v-bar again with 600 or finer paper.  Dress it with some paste wax.
    8.  Restring the piano using a dummy pin (wrap the coil, remove from dummy pin and transfer), pull 15 - 20 cents above pitch, set the beckets, run a roller gently over the strings to help settle them, pull to 10 - 15 cents above pitch, roll again, pull to 5 - 10 cents above pitch etc, until you get some semblance of stability.  Level and mate strings to hammers in whatever manner you prefer, gently set the bends at the bridge pins. 
    9.  Reinstall dampers (of course you set your damper guide before you removed them).

    At this pint I like to t10 - 15 cents sharp with the intention of coming back in a few days to a week.  Upon returning tune to pitch.  Return in two weeks.  Tune to pitch.  Return in a month, tune to pitch.  Return in 2-3 months, tune to pitch.  By the next time it will be time to tune the piano again anyway and the strings should be relatively stable if you've settled the bends, coils and beckets. 

    The process (one capo section) takes about a day not including the return visits for tuning.  YTMV.

    On this particular piano (and many others that I've done) the difference was very noticeable.  The pianist was shocked at how much difference it made in terms of cleaning up this section and creating greater tonal uniformity from the tenor through the treble.  I've encountered many Steinways (and other pianos as well) with this type of problem.  Interestingly, newer Steinways seem have the problem more often than even vary old ones, at least in my experience.  The standard for v-bar shaping out of the factory seems "loose".  It's a bit of a hassle and not without cost to the customer but if you are having noise problems as described it's something to consider and not difficult to do in the home. 

    Interestingly, the problem of noise was (is often) less pronounced in the upper capo section.  The relationship between the speaking and duplex lengths might have something to do with that. 

    A fine filing of the hammers to reduce mass and excess felt in the upper sections will also help to add clarity and sustain. 

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-22-2014 20:18
    Very nice description of your procedure, David.  I would never have thought of doing this in a customer's home.  I do have 1 question:  Did you lower the tension on the whole piano, or just lower and remove the strings in the sectionswithout lowering tension on the whole?    

    -------------------------------------------
    Clark A. Sprague, RPT
    Bowling Green, OH
    www.clarkspianoservice.com
    -------------------------------------------




  • 3.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-23-2014 00:18
    There is have a section in my book, The Educated Piano, that details reshaping capo bars in-situ. Wrote that in the mid 1980's and have been doing the procedure since 1978. No more string buzzes!!

    The only caveat is some Steinways and other pianos have hard V-bars-these can not be reshaped with a hand file. In act I don't suggest you try. The strings will be damaged even faster than the present state of their fatigue. You can tell hardness by using a small file on the v-bar below the plate strut. If the sound the file makes while cutting is like the sound of two files rubbing each other-the metal is too hard. The sound should be "soft heavy metal" sound. HAH!

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 4.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-23-2014 01:16
    No, I just removed the strings from that section.  You don't need to lower the tension on the whole piano.  The surrounding sections go sharp when the strings are removed and then drift back down when you pull the new strings to pitch.  Not exactly back in tune but I tuned the entire piano after anyway. 

    I'll have to disagree with Ed McMorrow.  You can reshape Steinway capo bars with hand files and I do it all the time and have for years, including this one, with no ill effects on the strings.  When the plate is out of the piano I flip it and use files or a die grinder sometimes.  I can't imagine how the capo would know what it was being shaped with.  These filed relatively easily.  A careful filing took about 20 minutes. 

    It's not ideal to do it in a customer's home but it's also not necessary to go to the trouble or expense of hauling the piano to the shop for this procedure.  On older pianos poor terminations often include the bridge side and addressing that would obviously be a more involved operation. 


    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 5.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-23-2014 08:33
    David Love< I'll have to disagree with Ed McMorrow.  You can reshape Steinway capo bars with hand files and I do it all the time and have for years, including this one, with no ill effects on the strings. 

    Ed was agreeing with the use of files to perform this shaping. With the exception being the occasional S&S plate where the capo has been hardened. A hardened metal will not respond to files well or at all, and will behave differently in regards to wear interface at the capo radius than the usual S&S soft cast iron.

    Jim    


    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Ialeggio
    grandpianosolutions.com
    Shirley, MA
    978 425-9026
    -------------------------------------------



















  • 6.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-23-2014 10:05
    I haven't seen that on a Steinway.  What do you mean by  "will behave differently in regards to wear interface"

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 7.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-23-2014 10:25
    The issue is not whether files can be used on hardened material, the issue is what type of file should be used if the capo has been hardened, or, perhaps, is made of some material other than cast iron, hardened or not.  You can use files on all types of materials, soft and hard, but the file requirements will change as might the filing technique.  If the capo is poorly shaped yet hardened there is no reason not to file it.  Certainly we would not say that because it has been hardened we cannot file it.  The only issue will be what type of file and there are many types of files for a wide variety of materials and uses.  The internet is replete with sources of information on files, techniques and requirements.   It might be worth looking at if in doubt. 

    A discussion on just what is the proper radius for a capo, hardened or unhardened, is probably worthwhile.  Opinions seem to vary.



    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 8.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-23-2014 10:27
    (OK Clint, if you really want to be the one to edit posts you can add the word "to" between "seem" and "vary" in the last sentence.  Would be better if I could do that myself. 

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 9.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-23-2014 11:02
    Personally, I have been using sandpaper instead of files for many, many years. I tried it at some point when I was frustrated with trying to use a flat file to make a rounded profile, and it worked better for me, was more controllable, easier to maintain the rounded profile and avoid ridges. I generally use scraps of paper that were used for wood, so the grit is worn down a bit (mostly just being frugal, getting the last use out of the material), fold the paper, and hold it with thumb and finger to press against the profile, and run along the length of the capo. Check with mirror to see where I am. When any grooves are just barely visible, I go down to fine grits (320 and below) and finish.

    I have found that since I started being very finicky about travel and square of hammers, leveling strings, and mating, issues with what is called capo or duplex noise have essentially disappeared. It seems that much if not by far the most of those noises come from out of phase strings, mating noise (the "zing" from unmated strings) being amplified within the duplex section. Occasionally noises are caused by capo issues, as in bits of metal against the string I guess, as well, but this seems far less prevalent than I assumed it was many years ago.

    To avoid developing such metal "filings" against the strings, I like to space pretty precisely before putting tension on the strings, using just enough tension to hold the strings firmly in place for the spacing process. 

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 10.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-23-2014 11:49
    Using sandpaper for dressing an already well shaped capo is probably ok but if it needs to be re-profiled sandpaper will not be adequate to the task.  The problems with capos that are poorly shaped are almost always that there are areas where the radius is too large, where the string contacts too much surface area across the capo.  That is a common occurrence.  That becomes very evident when you mark the capo with a black marker and start to profile it with a set angle on each side.  That type of poor shaping will create unwanted noise that cannot be resolved by even the most careful hammer string mating. 

    On a well profiled capo that has only modest string cuts  then running sandpaper along the length "can" serve to remove the string cuts.  But it is an unreliable method to set the radius of the capo generally and if not done carefully or done too aggressively can create problems by flattening some areas more than others.  It is always wise to mark the crown of the capo (is the bottom of the capo called the antapex?) with something like a marker (as mentioned) and then lightly remove the marker from the sides as described to insure that the radius is uniform.  Running fine sandpaper lightly along that edge would or shoe shining with fine grit paper to smooth and remove any burrs that may remain is probably a good idea.  

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 11.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-23-2014 13:21
    If the idea is to create a specific profile shape/radius, you really need to use a fret file or the equivalent. I simply found that using a flat mill file, with whatever degree of care, I had less control than I wanted over the curvature or the actual radius, partly because of issues of angle and access. It is easy enough to do straight strokes within a small range of angles, but difficult to turn that into a curved radius. Of course Ed McMorrow is aiming at something closer to a point, with the strings embedding themselves in the metal - is that right, Ed?

    Typically I accept the existing general design and even it out, and the straight sandpaper method works well for that, better than a mill file for me (and faster)

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 12.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-23-2014 18:07
    Well, that is exactly the idea (to create a specific and uniform profile) was that not clear?  If that's the problem then it should be  addressed.  The mill file doesn't create the radius, as it were, it reduces the width of the apex of the capo so that it can be "radiussed" with whatever method you choose, sandpaper along the length or by shoe shining.  Both will round it off.  

    If the shape of the capo is incorrect and inconsistent, wide and flat in one area and more pointed in another, then running sandpaper along it won't help, I'm afraid.  Neither will hammer fitting or string leveling.  If you file the apex to a point then you can soften the point into a radius quite easily.  Consistent termination behavior will depend on uniformity in the shape of the capo.   As Ron Nossaman pointed out, front duplex issues can also create problems but these problems are of a different sort and not always present depending on the counterbearing angle and such.  Another separate and worthwhile topic but I won't delve into it here.  In this case changing the front duplex in a relatively new piano was not an option and wouldn't have been my recommendation anyway under the circumstances.  Even if it were, I still would have shaped the capo bar. 

    When you have a poorly shaped capo and do the work as I described the difference is obvious as this pianist quickly observed.  Not the first time for this either.  Using a mill file for this does take some attention and skill.  But if that's the problem the differences will be apparent.  If not then, of course, it won't.  Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to determine whether or not that's the problem before you start.  Some older Steinways have very nicely shaped capo bars and are relatively hard and unmarked.  Others are not. 

    Rebuilt pianos don't leave my shop without attention paid to the shape of the capo.  Some require a fair amount of work and some don't. 

    But I didn't write this to try and convince anyone to do this.  Do what you want.  But minimizing he importance of uniformity in the shape of the capo is misinformed, I believe. 

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 13.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-23-2014 18:10
    BTW, I usually accept the general design as well (though there are exceptions). But there is often quite a difference between the "design" and the "execution".  I don't accept poor execution if I am able to correct it.  I don't think you do either, but maybe you do. 

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------

     Typically I accept the existing general design and even it out, and the straight sandpaper method works well for that, better than a mill file for me (and faster)

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------



  • 14.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-23-2014 12:30
    On 7/22/2014 5:51 PM, David Love via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:

    > It's a
    > pain to uncouple the strings and back the pins out if they are too
    > low.

    It's also unnecessary. Something on the order of 30 years or so ago, I
    decided that I refused to take the string off to bring a pin back up
    that I had driven too deep during a shop stringing. Using a small
    machinist's jack, I found a hex head bolt that fit the thread, chucked
    the bolt in the drill press and drilled a hole centered in the head, and
    inserted a piece of appropriately sized drill rod (old broken bit that
    fit into the drilled holed underneath). Using this as a jack, I put
    pressure on the bottom of the pin and turned the pin about ten degrees
    left, then back. As it turned, it rose in the block. A little more
    pressure and another back and forth, and it was slightly high. I've used
    it a number of times since, and it's always worked very well.


    > Interestingly, the problem of noise was (is often) less pronounced in
    > the upper capo section. The relationship between the speaking and
    > duplex lengths might have something to do with that.

    This should be no mystery at all. Years ago, Del did the research and
    wrote the Journal article describing how and why this does what it does.
    The counter bearing angle is too low and the front duplex sections are
    too long. They are longer in the lower treble section than in the top,
    so that section will tend to be noisier. Pianos with short duplex
    segments and a continuous counter bearing piece never develop these
    noises and "need" field reshaping of the capo. It's a design flaw and
    always was, and barely works at best. Anyone who's ever made this
    conversion to eliminate tuned front duplexes can attest to this,
    including yourself.
    Ron N




  • 15.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-07-2021 03:05
    Could someone find that article (Del Fanderich on bearing surface angles and duplex sections)?

    ------------------------------
    Blaine Hebert
    Duarte CA
    626-795-5170
    ------------------------------



  • 16.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-23-2014 15:59
    Much thanks Fred. I'm going to copy your process and keep it. Who knows, maybe one day I'll need it.

    -------------------------------------------
    Giovanni Voltaggio
    A440 Piano Service
    Website
    Austin, Texas
    A440PS@gmail.com
    -------------------------------------------




  • 17.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-23-2014 18:41
    I've tried to stay up on this thread, and if what I say misses anything
    already said, I apologize.

    I've been interested in the capo bar issue for most of my own 35 year piano
    service career. I remember discussing it in the 1980s with Bill Garlick
    when he was at Steinway; at that time I'm pretty sure Bill said that
    Steinway was hardening the capo. Matt Grossman had also contributed something to
    the tech editor section in the Journal in 1984 on TIG welding/reflowing
    badly damaged v bars, which I did on a couple of heavily beat up university
    Steinways (or had done, unfortunately my welder long since passed after a
    couple years of serious health problems stemming from environmental exposure).
    The V bars after reflowing were spectacular after surface reflowing and
    gentle resurfacing. But I'm getting ahead of myself....

    Of course there are a set of problems we face, which can sometimes be
    blamed simply on the capo bar. Fred has made that point very well.

    There are really two points I want to make, one relating to the
    deterioration of the string material itself, the other relating to the capo bar
    hardness.

    1. Piano wire work hardening: My experience is that in an ordinarily
    fine treble (especially the lowest capo section), the first obvious
    capo-related deterioration is due to the work-hardening of the wire itself at the
    v-bar. I'll never forget my first attempt to prove that idea, many years
    before Susan Kline wrote that piece for the Journal....The piano was a restrung
    "C" which had been used heavily in a teaching studio. Using the original
    wire, I backed the tuning pin off on one side and pulled it up on the other
    side. The buzzing and zinging cleared up and the treble was excellent
    again. I concluded that stiffness due to work hardening of the string caused
    extreme leakage and buzzing at and through the v-bar. This work hardening
    at the v-bar leads eventually to string breakage, which should be prevented
    ahead of time through restringing (a better solution than my messy little
    experiment), but of course schools prefer to wait until 20 or 30 strings
    have broken....

    2. Capo bar/v bar hardness: It has always been my understanding that
    non-insert capo bar hardness is either 1) at the least, part of the expected
    hardness of the surface of any cooled cast iron material, or) the result of
    deliberate hardening through finishing techniques in reheating the capo bar.

    The main point I want to make is that if it is If 1) or 2) I would be very
    careful to avoid aggressive re-shaping. I assume that the shape of a v-bar
    is not something I want to mess with, except for light surface
    preparation.

    This seems to be consistent with Fred's approach, whether or not he agrees
    with the above.

    Of course Ed McMorrow's approach as he has outlined it in his book and
    since is a radical departure which looks for optimal performance without regard
    for longevity, at least, as I understand it. I remember that when my
    brother worked in product planning for Honda, the Acura NSX had just come
    out. It had sticky tires that were good for 3,000 miles.....

    Regards,

    Bill Shull


    In a message dated 7/23/2014 12:58:56 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
    Mail@ConnectedCommunity.org writes:

    Much thanks Fred. I'm going to copy your process and keep it. Who knows,
    maybe one day I'll need it.

    -------------------------------------------
    Giovanni Voltaggio
    A440 Piano Service
    Website <https://www.facebook.com/A440PianoService>
    Austin, Texas
    A440PS@gmail.com
    -------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------
    Original Message:
    Sent: 07-22-2014 18:51




  • 18.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-23-2014 19:25
    One doesn't reshape the capo for fun or exercise.  You reshape it because it is inconsistently shaped to begin with.  If the capo is shaped properly out of the factory then an "aggressive" (whatever that is) reshaping is not necessary.  If the capo is shaped poorly and inconsistently then it may require some aggressive shaping in some areas and virtually none in others.  That would be an original execution flaw, not a design element to treasure and hold dear. 

    When the capo is hardened, it is only the very bottom (the point of the "v") that is hardened.  When you reshape the capo you are typically not taking any material off the point of the "v" (or very minimal as in the sanding process).  You are removing material from the side of the "v" to make a more consistent profile.  If you aggressively remove the hardened point of the "v" then you might well be doing something you regret.  Certainly you will create more and unnecessary work for yourself.

    While I fully embrace the notion of doing no harm, to not do something that is necessary out of fear is agreeing to let an execution flaw remain because you are afraid or simply don't know how to deal with it.  That doesn't make sense when it comes to any number of faulty executions that we find every day in pianos.  The capo bar is no exception. However, if one is uncomfortable doing some task because of concern about the necessary skill set required then it's probably better not to do it.  But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.  

    This isn't a highly technical operation  It's something that most modestly skilled technician's should be able to handle without fear of disaster.  What I suggest neither shortens the life of the capo or the piano.  

    If you are more comfortable just running sandpaper along the bar that's fine.  But if there is a profile problem (and they do exist) don't expect much even if it makes you feel better. 
     
     

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 19.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-24-2014 20:39
    I have plenty of respect for those who obsess about just the right profile radius for capos. In my own experience, there is a good bit of latitude within which I personally find no perceptible difference. Hence, I usually leave the profile the way it was. I look at it, and if there are casting flaws or machining flaws, I correct them, and a mill file is often the best tool for that job. But I do not routinely sharpen the radius, as many do. I am not arguing against the practice, simply stating my own practice. Most commonly, I am simply cleaning up and evening out what is there, making small improvements where there were noticeable issues that I believe might make an impact (noting that I have seen imperfections on tear downs where there had been no perceived problems).

    I am going to reiterate my opinion based on a lot of experience, that clarity, focus, and elimination of what techs commonly call front duplex noise are most often related more to basic prep factors: if you travel, square, file, mate hammers to leveled strings - very carefully and obsessively - the majority of problems in those areas disappear.

    I'll relate an anecdote. Earlier this year, a colleague asked me to consult on a Steinway D in a recital hall, nearly new, faculty had loved it when selected and delivered. Now, a couple years later, they were complaining, and talking about having Steinway send a tech to look at it or sending it to New York to be worked on. My colleague persuaded them to try an independent consultant first, and chose me for some reason.

    The piano was certainly not bad, in decent regulation and voice, which would pass muster in most circumstances. But it could definitely use some refinement in the areas of travel/square/file hammers, level strings, and mate, and that is where I put most of my efforts in a day's work. There had been "capo noise" issues, lack of focus when tuning, voicing that "rose" (tonal gradient) unevenly and unpredictably, etc. After this work, those issues had essentially disappeared (I did nothing with the terminations other than leveling strings). 

    As I was heading home, my colleague told me, "You should teach these techniques." My response was that I do, have been teaching them in most of the classes I have offered at conventions, have been writing about them on lists both pre-MyPTG and MyPTG.

    In any event, this was not an isolated case. The same thing has occurred for many private clients and for institutional pianos, consistently, for many years. As a result, I have tended to downplay other factors, like capo shape and other termination issues, though I certainly don't ignore them.

    One of the problems in assessing actual effects of procedures like capo dressing is that they are almost never done in isolation. At a minimum, the strings have to be removed (unless you are just shoe-shining), and probably replaced with new ones. Presumably most people these days would then level strings, mate, and what have you. What was the effect of the capo dressing vis à vis those other procedures? How can we know? (However, if you do the travel/square/level/mate thing, you know it wasn't the capo you changed).

    Same thing with other procedures, like backing a string off one tuning pin onto another, as Bill Shull mentioned. I did that many times over the years, and sometimes it improved things, sometimes not. As I look back today, I am pretty sure the improvement was more due to change in string level, hence mating, than to other factors I might have had in my mind (little bits of metal on the string or capo, for instance).

    A rather long, rambling post. Just trying to make clear why I tend to de-emphasize capo dressing, and go for a basic, low tech approach.

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 20.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-24-2014 23:33
    OK  Whether one is able to determine the source of the noise: capo, string leveling, mating, whatever, is one thing.  You may not be able to discern that clearly or may conflate the issues based on anecdotal evidence (which, as you know, is not really evidence).  But to draw from that a conclusion that capo shape is of little or no consequence is a mistake and possibly a big one in my view.  If you flip enough plates and examine the capos closely you will discover that the uniformity and precision of shaping varies considerably.  Many are just fine and many are horrible.  If you look at the premium piano builders and rebuilders of the world you will find great attention paid to the shape of the capo bar.  That is not a simple exercise.  There is a reason. 

    Honestly, I am somewhat aghast that you would make this argument considering how precise you are in other areas.  I can't help but wonder if the important thing here is not to simply have an opinion rather than have one that makes sense.  Would you make the same argument at the bridge side, that the bridge top might fall anywhere and on either side of the bridge pins and be really of no consequence?  I don't think so and if you did make that argument you would be mistaken.  Would you say that the shape of the contact area within the agraffe makes no difference?  Again, if you did, you would be mistaken.  Yet in the capo section where speaking termination is more critical than in any other area of the piano you argue that the shape of the capo is of no consequence.  Not only do I think you are completely wrong but I think you are offering bad advice and engaging in a Barbara Tuchman like March of Folly to attempt to defend such a position. 

    It is important to clarify what you and others of posited as the question since it has now been made several times: does reshaping the capo mean a "radical" departure from the conventional approach or does it simply mean creating uniformity within a traditional framework.  I keep hearing "filing the capo to a sharp point" yet that was never offered as a goal.  It's a straw man.  You are making up a point that was never made and then creating an argument against it.  It may be worth discussing the ideal radius or whether smaller radii are necessarily less stable (I've seen no evidence of that, btw).  But to suggest that there is no difference between radii of 100mm, 50mm, 10mm or 3mm is ludicrous.  Such inconsistencies do exist. 

    Precision in the shaping of the capo is a very important part of the detailing of the speaking portion of the piano.  Period.  You may choose to ignore it.  You may have found that many of the pianos you worked on didn't require a reshaping of a part of the capo and confused that with the notion that the shape of the capo is therefore unimportant.  But you would be wrong.  And I say that in no uncertain terms. 

    Noise in the capo section may come from various sources, some of those that you mention included.  But no amount of string leveling, hammer mating, string replacement, string movement, or any other procedures will resolve issues that stem from a poorly shaped capo.  All things are important if one wants the greatest amount of clarity.  The devil is in the details.  All of them, not just our favorites.   

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 21.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-25-2014 02:19
    David L,

    I was hoping I had saved some pics from the disparity of capos, but alas not.

    All I can say is WOW at some of the horrible capos as they appear in the few concert grands that I service.

    I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't witnessed it myself.

    My sincerest apologies for no pics at this time. I intend to retake those pics this August so my words will hopefully not fall on deaf ears.

    Keith McGavern, RPT
    Shawnee, Oklahoma, USA
    kam544@allegiance.tv
    [Visual Tuning Platform User]
    [iRCT & OnlyPure ]



  • 22.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-29-2014 03:16
    David L, all,

    I found the pics!

    Steinway & Sons, Model D, #382123, 1963

    Keith McGavern, RPT
    Shawnee, Oklahoma, USA
    kam544@allegiance.tv
    [Visual Tuning Platform User]
    [iRCT & OnlyPure ]



  • 23.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-29-2014 12:33
    Keith -
    Those are quite dramatic.  To be clear, do those represent 7 different pianos?  If so, are they all D's, out of NY?  Rebuilt?  Are you able to discern any tonal difference between the best and worst 'looking' ones?  If so, it would be interesting if you were able to attach a sound recording to some of them.
    Thanks

    -------------------------------------------
    David Skolnik
    Hastings-on-Hudson NY
    914-231-7565
    -------------------------------------------




  • 24.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-29-2014 13:58
    David S.,

    One piano  ...   Steinway & Sons, Model D, #382123, 1963  ... New York, not rebuilt.
    Tonal differences, not any of significant discernment that I concern myself with.
    Just an old D that is used for 2nd piano activities which serves its purpose for continued use.

    Pictures are in sequence: from the 2nd strut above bass/tenor strut, to the 3rd strut above the bass/tenor strut.

    Sorry, no sound bytes will not forthcoming.

    Keith McGavern, RPT
    Shawnee, Oklahoma, USA
    kam544@allegiance.tv
    [Visual Tuning Platform User]
    [iRCT & OnlyPure ]



  • 25.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-25-2014 14:56
    Interesting how much passion can be evoked unintentionally, and largely from emphasis rather than from actual disagreement. I will try to re-direct the conversation to a more constructive path, by emphasizing, this time, my own thoughts on capo shape.

    Let's get specific. There is a narrow range of capo radius that is generally used and considered acceptable or ideal. Ed McMorrow's is the extreme at the narrow side, sharpening to a point, but in fact the termination is not a point, as he points out. The wire embeds in the relatively soft iron, so the effective "radius" (perhaps contact profile is a better term) is likely to be something like 1 - 2 mm. I don't know what the other extreme is, but from what I have seen, it appears to be on the order of 5 to possibly 6 mm. The "norm" (if there is one) seems to be in the area of 3 mm, + or - 1mm. This is just my own observation, limited by the scope of my experience, and if it is erroneous I'd be happy to be corrected.

    2 - 5 mm is the range of "normal" I usually encounter, and I find that range acceptable. I do not correct 5 to make it 2 or 3. I do not correct 2 to make it 3 or 4. I leave it where it is if it is in that general range. I have not found those differences to be significant, though I am quite aware that others do. I remain an agnostic, making no assertion one way or another.

    Perhaps more important, though, is to look particularly at the speaking length termination. At that side, the "slope upwards" of the profile perhaps needs to be steeper, or has a greater need to be steep to avoid something on the order of "buzzing." Bosey makes it almost a right angle on the removable capo segments, not quite sharp but almost. Certainly any "flatness" toward the speaking length is deleterious and must be addressed. This can typically be observed fairly easily, and a magnifying mirror (for makeup or shaving) with good lighting can help you see if this is an issue. Maybe I've led a sheltered life, but I haven't seen it very often, other than in a small segment here or there, where there was a poor job of casting or machining.

    Now, for the speaking length termination to be clean, that also means the radius into the duplex needs to be within certain minimums, so that the wire bends upward adequately (and there needs to be an adequate angle from capo to whatever the string bears on toward the tuning pin). If the profile toward the speaking length is sharper, the profile toward the tuning pin can be somewhat less so, within limits.

    The other major factor to be considered is support of the string: a hard and "sharpened" profile would yield too tight a bend, leading to string breakage, as the limiting factor in that direction.

    All these criteria are things I consider to be important, together with a relatively smooth, clean surface. If the criteria are not met, that needs to be addressed. That said, I will repeat once again that my own experience has seemed to show that a majority of the noise components commonly attributed to front duplex or capo condition/profile actually have their origin elsewhere, in the precise way in which the strings are driven by the hammer (ie, travel/square/level/mate). Such noises CAN have their origin in something to do with capo profile, angle, etc. and it is wise to look there and to create/maintain a set of parameters there when it is convenient to do so (ie when restringing). It is also possible to address them short of full restringing, as described in the first post of this thread, a detailed and well conceived description.

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 26.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-25-2014 16:08
    Again missing the point.  The issue is not 2 or 3 or 5 mm radius or the radius that is chosen by any given manufacturer.  The issue is when the capo is so poorly shaped that it is virtually flat.  In fact the capo is not "radiussed" really (though it can be).  It is triangular in shape with the peak of the triangle taken down to a specific width or "radius" as we are calling it.  Overs' capo is actually a radius in which metal rod is installed at the crown of the capo.  There are other examples of that as well.  The "peak" of the capo is often rounded over in the process of smoothing by methods such as you employ, sanding, or shaped roughly into a curve, as when you use a fret file, but the term radius is probably a misnomer as real attempts to make the capo "round" targeting a specific radius are not really made.  We use it as a convenient description.  In practice, the peak of the capo is filed to a certain width and then smoothed over, unless, of course, it isn't. 

    So just to reiterate in case there is any lingering confusion, when it gets too wide, you have problems.  Since string invariably make the peak wider from wear then one that starts out too wide to begin with only gets wider and with that it gets noisier.  At some width no amount of smoothing over will remedy the problem. 

    So let's do get specific.  Reshaping the capo as I called for occurs when the capo is too flat and too wide largely owning to careless factory work.  That happens more often than you think, apparently, though it does not always happen and therefore, the capo doesn't always need to be reshaped.  The width of the contact area makes a big difference in terms of how It is to correct that flaw that I posted this originally and I thought I made that clear.  Yours is a tangent.  I never called for changing the radius from 5 to 4 or from 4 to 3 etc.  So I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. 

    The passion you observe is actually frustration at clarifying the points you keep making which have nothing really to do with the original post which was addressing how to remedy a poorly shaped capo in situ.  You have made a muddle of the topic by conflating it with the notion that it makes no difference whether the chosen radius varies by a few mm. You might be correct or you might not.  But it's really a separate issue.

    It would probably be beneficial if you simply started a new thread "Is there an ideal capo radius and why do we care".   You can then pontificate on that subject to your heart's content.  In that discussion we can for arguments sake assume a uniform radius across the capo and perhaps come to some determination as to whether it makes a difference and what other variables (such as hardness) might contribute.  A worthwhile but different subject. 

    In the end, however, it probably doesn't matter.  Those who find it necessary to reshape the capo bar with the piano in someone's home will hopefully benefit from the original post and not be confused by the digression into something else.  Those who interpret your writing as the capo is never responsible for noise problems will, sadly, go on searching.  Whatever path you take, good luck. 


    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 27.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-25-2014 23:39
    David,
    I will quote you, the fourth post you made in this thread, the day after the initial post:

    "A discussion on just what is the proper radius for a capo, hardened or unhardened, is probably worthwhile.  Opinions seem to vary." 

    I guess you are saying now that such a discussion, while worthwhile, needs to take place in a different thread? I don't see why that is necessary, as the topic is intimately related (if you are going to reshape a capo, to what shape?). I see you using the word radius, so I guess it is in your vocabulary in talking about capo surfacing, though now you seem to be saying it is beside the point. I used the terminology "sharpening," in an earlier post, to which you took great umbrage. Well, if you take the existing profile and taper it to a line equivalent to a fine tipped pen (your words), I'd call that sharpening (not quite as sharp as Ed McMorrow, but pretty "sharp"). I'd guess it would be what I would refer to as a 1 mm "radius." So I interpret your preference to be making all capos have about a 1 mm radius (even if it is flat - let's not quibble, as you are rounding that tiny radius with sandpaper, shoe-shining, so it is a somewhat rounded profile).

    That is what I have gathered from your posts. My last post attempted to open a discussion on at least the question of "what is the proper radius," laying out some thoughts I have had (which seem to be at variance with yours, but that is not a sin). I take it you prefer not to continue the discussion, at least with me, and that's fine. However, it is a topic worth discussing, so I'd be happy to continue it with others who are interested. If someone wants to start it in a different thread, that's fine too. Makes no difference to me.

    I'll throw in a word or two on hardening, to stir the pot. Many hold the opinion that a hardened termination will lead to string breakage. I'll beg to differ on that, and counter that it will only lead to more likely string breakage if the termination is "too sharp." I don't have a firm opinion on what precisely that would mean, but the reason is simply that the bend in the wire over a sharper termination, especially if the angle is high, will be a sharper bend, which is more likely to break than one that is supported by a larger radius, hence a more gradual bend. The reason a hard sharpened surface would cause more breakage than a soft one is simply that the soft one would cease to be as sharp fairly quickly. 

    Hardness per se would not lead to breakage in my view unless it is coupled with abrasion. The fact that a string is against a surface harder than itself will not lead it to become more deformed (in cross section) than when it is against a somewhat softer surface, this deformation leading to more breakage, for the simple reason that the string is driven by a felt covered hammer at a distance away from the fulcrum. Even if it were directly on the fulcrum, the resilience of the felt material and the flexibility of the shank would absorb so much of the blow that it is hard to believe it could cause deformation of steel against hardened iron. The effect of the blow being at a distance means that the wire is not driven directly at the capo, but is set into motion, more or less rocking across the fulcrum. Relative hardness or softness makes no difference in that scenario, as long as the position is firmly held by the capo. (Such deformation of wire as does occur over capos - if it does occur, as some claim - is more likely due to abrasion of tuning).

    As for sonic effects, Ed McMorrow has strong opinions about the benefits of soft over hard. Others have recommended (and put into practice) a harder surface, among them Ron Overs and the Sauter company as well as several reputable rebuilders. I won't anticipate the arguments here, but I hope others will make them.

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 28.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-26-2014 00:24
    I think it's probably best if you stop trying to interpret my posts so I can stop clarifying.  I stand by the original post about shaping the capo bar and all the other explanations and clarifications I've offered.   But please feel free to take the thread wherever you like.  I claim no ownership. 
     



    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 29.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-26-2014 10:03
    One final summary outline as this thread has gotten way too messy and confusing:

    The simplest way to think of shaping the capo is that the capo can be V shaped or U shaped or I_I box shaped.  The goal is to have the minimal contact area for the string with consideration of the material hardness. 

    If the material is relatively soft then you should shape the bar in the form of a V and then, as Ed McMorrow states, the string will settle into the bottom of the V to the degree that the string is able to cut into the softer material.  Once there it will find a point of stability and your area of contact will be minimized.  The actual angle of the sides of the V need not be exact. It probably varies between 30 and 45 degrees typically. 

    If the bar is U shaped and the material is soft then it will tend to cut into the U and flatten the contact area to a greater degree than is desired.  Too much contact area will tend to produce unwanted noise.  If the material is hard then the U shape is fine because the contact point at the bottom of the U will be stable owing to the hardness of the material relative to the string.  A rod insert effectively has a U shape.  In this case it may be appropriate to discuss the radius.  In the case of the V discussing it in terms of radius is probably meaningless.

    The box shape I_I is never desirable because it creates too broad a contact surface.  Sanding along the capo if it already has a somewhat boxy shape will not be productive.  Similarly, if you sand along a U shape (especially a broad or wide U shape) when the material is soft you will tend to flatten it further and increase the contact surface area.   This can contribute to unwanted noise.

    It may well be that a V shape with very hard material might contribute to string breakage.  It probably depends on how hard the material is.  If you are using very hard materials (such as steel rod) then it probably makes sense to leave it in it's original profile, i.e. round.  The hardness of the capo should never exceed the hardness of the string or you will get breakage.   

    If the capo was poorly shaped in the factory (which they sometimes are) and is box shaped or has too broad a U shape and the material is soft you will have some noise associated with that and you should proceed to file the capo into a V shape.  This is the procedure I outlined.

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------



  • 30.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-26-2014 09:45

    <Fred S As for sonic effects, Ed McMorrow has strong opinions about the benefits of soft over hard. Others have recommended (and put into practice) a harder surface, among them Ron Overs and the Sauter company as well as several reputable rebuilders. I won't anticipate the arguments here

    All the opinions, varying as they are, are incorporated as system wide structural and aesthetic decisions...there is no one right approach.

    Ed's approach chooses to maximize the pivot nature of the capo termination. He places a value on the tonal signature of a long tuned duplex. It is a tonal signature which can include musically useful complexity and also has a tendency to make noises.  His system recognizes this tendency to make noise, and works the parameters of the system to achieve maximum pivot, and eliminate un-wanted noise. In his system, soft, narrow, self-machining, makes sense. Impedance of the soundboard structure, at least in the top capo section is not a defining part of this approach

    Ron Overs  comes at it from a completely different perspective, thus the definitions of what constitutes an appropriate hardness and radius are different than Ed's. Ron sees impedance of the soundboard structure, that is, stiffness beyond what others like S&S  target, as "essential" to his tonal goals. I see it as setting up the entire belly/termination to conserve as much energy as possible, striving to keep energy in the speaking length. As such, hard terminations, very short(10mm) duplex lengths, make sense. They ellicit their own tonal signature. This signature differs from Ed's tonal signature. I assume the hard termination has a generous radius, and the noise this could generate is dealt with by the 10mm duplex length.

    It is not only hard/gentle radius vs soft sharp self-machining radius, but rather how that one decision integrates with the system as a whole...ie how the decision integrates with a whole host of other decisions, both aesthetic and materials based .

    Variations of these two versions obviously exist. As long as the question of the termination is considered in relation to the entire system, they work, or work to such a degree that any possible shortcomings are considered to be within the range of acceptability. That is, they work until the system or the execution degrades,thus moving the system out of the band width of acceptability.

    Separate from the viability of different systems, ie, separate from the intention, there is un-avoidable discrepency between design and execution in this work...we all struggle with this in own own work. David's point, as I take it, and agree with, is to the best of one's ability read the system as a whole, read the clients tastes in tonal signature, and compare that with what the factory actually produced...not what the factory intended to produce, but what they actually produced,  If there is a discrepancy, his in-situ approach, which Ed in his own way has also been doing for years, the process can be a cost effective fix. (though a tad hard on aging backs...ughh)

    I often sense some notion, regarding "what they did at the factory" that misses the fact that all factories are...well...factories. Every process is analyzed in time vs motion. When motion exceeds the available time, the part moves on to the next step, ready or not. This happens whether its an S&S  factory or a Wurlitzer factory. In a construction this complex, the notion that every step of the way will be perfectly executed every time, is unrealistically optimistic.

    Jim Ialeggio      







    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Ialeggio
    grandpianosolutions.com
    Shirley, MA
    978 425-9026
    -------------------------------------------




  • 31.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-26-2014 11:28
    I will go further, and say that those people who suggest that my method of shaping string terminations leads to string breakage are slandering me. I consider it professionally unethical to claim technical expertise with specifications that you have no experience or testing data to back up your claims. I do have the experience and data to back up my specifications.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 32.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-26-2014 16:39
    Ed should probably clarify that as should Ron  Ed's duplex modification, I believe, shortens the duplex some.  I don't know if it is tuned or untuned.  All duplexes will pivot. Shorter ones pivot less.  Energy still travels through to the duplex and is reflected back to the speaking length but the shorter duplex will have less energy transfer and therefore less energy loss before it can be reflected back.  The least amount of energy loss would occur if the string was actually clamped to the capo which is, of course, impractical.  Overs pays special attention (or did) to detuning the duplex so that it would not vibrate sympathetically which also increases energy loss.  Steinway claims to produce a tuned front duplex (though I'm not sure that it really is accurately tuned).  While this creates sympathetic vibrations that are to some degree audible and contribute in a small way to the tonal envelope, it also results in greater energy loss from the speaking portion and can be responsible for noise.  Most of these issues seem to be matters of degree (the exception being tuned versus untuned) rather than perspective.    A very stiff soundboard assembly in the treble with a long duplex will be noisy for other reasons, namely the inability of the energy in speaking length to be adequately absorbed by the soundboard therefore too much energy is transferred to the long duplex scale and it jangles.  That gets addressed in various ways including making the soundboard less stiff, adding mass or shortening the duplex scale, all topics for another discussion 

    I have not read Ed's patent material yet but I did have a chance to hear his Steinway B in (Phoenix?) that had the modified front duplex and, presumably, his standard capo shaping.  It was one of the cleanest and most focused trebles on one of those pianos that I've heard FWIW.  The contribution of the hammer characteristics should also be accounted for there.    

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------

    Jim I wrote:

     Ed's approach chooses to maximize the pivot nature of the capo termination. He places a value on the tonal signature of a long tuned duplex. It is a tonal signature which can include musically useful complexity and also has a tendency to make noises.  His system recognizes this tendency to make noise, and works the parameters of the system to achieve maximum pivot, and eliminate un-wanted noise. In his system, soft, narrow, self-machining, makes sense. Impedance of the soundboard structure, at least in the top capo section is not a defining part of this approach

    Ron Overs  comes at it from a completely different perspective, thus the definitions of what constitutes an appropriate hardness and radius are different than Ed's. Ron sees impedance of the soundboard structure, that is, stiffness beyond what others like S&S  target, as "essential" to his tonal goals. I see it as setting up the entire belly/termination to conserve as much energy as possible, striving to keep energy in the speaking length. As such, hard terminations, very short(10mm) duplex lengths, make sense. They ellicit their own tonal signature. This signature differs from Ed's tonal signature. I assume the hard termination has a generous radius, and the noise this could generate is dealt with by the 10mm duplex length.

     
    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Ialeggio
    grandpianosolutions.com
    Shirley, MA
    978 425-9026
    -------------------------------------------














  • 33.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-26-2014 16:59
    <David L-I have not read Ed's patent material yet but I did have a chance to hear his Steinway B in (Phoenix?) that had the modified front duplex and, presumably, his standard capo shaping.  It was one of the cleanest and most focused trebles on one of those pianos that I've heard FWIW.  The contribution of the hammer characteristics should also be accounted for there.    

    This is exactly where I'm coming from at this point in thinking. The sustain and clarity Ed's pulled off up there is an absolute gas to play. My own high trebles (#69-88), though pretty nice adhering to the impedance model,  on experiment were vastly improved by incorporation of some of his ideas, from picky-ass strike point re-location, serious mass reduction,  to long targeted ratio duplex segments. I am currently working on a customer's piano which incorporates some of Ed's thinking, after having put my experiment piano through a very successful trail test of the ideas.

    In thinking about what physically is going on with short and long duplexes, it seems the only thing anyone can say with certainty is "well perhaps this(so-and-so) is happening". I don't think any of us really have a clue theoretically though empirically we can achieve certain effects.

    In the maybe-this-maybe-that department, though the model of the clamped termination is often spoken of as highly efficient, the clamp could also waste energy in heat as the stiff wire is not allowed any movement at all. A real capo termination is as you say not clamped, but neither is it free to pivot without some degree of restraint which could be inefficient. On the other hand, a free-er pivot, ie a long pivot and its seesaw like behavior could also be considered to be an efficient termination because it works with the stiffness of the wire instead of against it.  

    In any case, something empirically is happening in Ed's trebles that bears serious consideration instead of the marginalization these ideas seem to garner.

    Jim Ialeggio 


    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Ialeggio
    grandpianosolutions.com
    Shirley, MA
    978 425-9026
    -------------------------------------------













  • 34.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-26-2014 18:53
    One of the points of my model of piano engineering is to proportion the details of various signature features of the modern piano design across the compass properly. My theory of Musically Intelligible Sound applied to pianos divides the compass into three pianos. The bulk is the "vocal piano", this range covers the singing human voice range, the "birdsong treble'", and the "gong" or "wind instrument" sound for the lowest octave. All the specifications need to be matched to the musical expectations across the compass.

    I don't think I should be forced to repeat information that I have put into professionally edited text. Those of you interested can give me the respect of reading it. I read your posts here. 

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 35.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-23-2014 23:53

    I really like using a fret file for this job, especially (but not only) when the plate is in the piano. It gives a nice smooth profile. For some it might have too broad a radius, but I have not found this to be an issue. The difficult section is often the giant fillet where the capo joins the struts. I have not found a satisfactory way to deal with this in the piano as most people wouldn't want me and my compressor with angle grinder and carbide burrs creating clouds of black iron dust in their living room.

    David, what is the purpose of the paste wax? Lubrication? Isn't the lubricity of the iron enough?

    Thanks for posting your procedure.
    -------------------------------------------
    Alan McCoy
    Spokane WA
    ahm2352@gmail.com
    -------------------------------------------




  • 36.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-24-2014 23:45
    I don't particularly like the radius of the fret file, though most fret files come with a small and large end.  If the overall shape of the capo is fine (and many of them are just fine) then running a fret file or fine piece of sandpaper to smooth it will be fine.  The piano I addressed had a problem, the capo was virtually flat in several areas and the termination was awful.  This is not unusual.  The pianist had complained about it for a long time (predating my working on the piano).  All other attempts to remedy were made.  It became very clear that the problem was not the strings or hammers (or bridge).  The capo was the only remaining issue and reshaping it solved the problem.  Not my opinion alone, the pianist (and a good one) offered her own opinion in no uncertain terms.  The difference was clearly evident and in the area where the reshaping was done. 

    I would not advocate bringing the compressor and die grinder into the living room.  I did this with files.  Using the method I described (blackening the "v" and with mirrors and adequate lighting) it was very obvious that the shape was poor.  It is the most awkward near the treble/tenor strut but still can be done with files. 

    I use paste wax to put a moisture barrier on the freshly filed cast iron.  The lubricity is not really the issue.   

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 37.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-25-2014 00:03
    I have reshaped hundreds of V-bars in the "radical", (as Mr. Schull describes it) way outlined in; The Educated Piano. I continue to service and live with many pianos with V-bars configured like those specifications. NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER!!!!!. NO STRING BUZZES EVER!!! NO STRING BREAKAGE!!! I have done the work to prove this, if you can't respect that, it reflects poorly on the industries professionalism. Be aware, I have continuos data on the performance of these specifications from 1978 on. If that is not long enough to convince you----well---I won't get vulgar yet!!!
     

    And with my recently developed Fully Tempered Duplex Scale, the latest ones have no hoots or whistles in the treble.

    I will repeat again: It is not the string grooves that buzz in a V-bar-it is the profile of the bar that lets the grooves buzz. Piano wire should only be terminated on materials that are softer than the wire itself and when these materials are properly configured, the string will self-machine the exact shape it needs for perfect function. No need to round the surface of the string contact point at all. It is all very simple and really no more complicated than that!

    David, some day you will experience the hard-as-a-rock V-bar. You will need a diamond cutter to work it and the strings will break on the newly narrowed hard surface. I do not recommend shaping hard V-bars. The proper repair would entail machining the plate to install agraffes.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 38.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-26-2014 19:36
    All,

    I am only responding to this entire thread, not to any one individual.
    All information thus far posted is quite spectacular and shows there is more to the shape of the capo bar by the experiences thus shared.
    There is so much going on in a piano, that I find it hard to attribute one's success as opposed to another's success.

    Thank you all for being and sharing your findings to date. Honest to God!

    Keith McGavern, RPT
    Shawnee, Oklahoma, USA
    kam544@allegiance.tv
    [Visual Tuning Platform User]
    [iRCT & OnlyPure ]
    -------------------------------------------


  • 39.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-29-2014 00:09
    To all:
    Shouldn't providing a service that permanently eliminates a problem, and also has the benefit of increasing the longevity of the strings, be considered the preferred professional specification?

    Wouldn't it behoove us as professionals to be able to prescribe sets of specifications for selected design features found in pianos? And to promote these preferred specifications to the piano public? Why shouldn't we piano technicians take charge of certain technical specifications on behalf of the industry? The industry won't do this. They hope to skate on by doing things the old haphazard way and getting us to patch things up for them and when that doesn't work, well, "sorry-we did everything we know how to do", will be their excuse.

    I think PTG should publish preferred technical specifications for V-bars in particular but other areas as well written in simple terms that the piano public could refer to when considering purchasing a piano or piano services.

    This would do more to build the RPT PTG brand than anything else I can think of. The manufacturers may get angry but they would be forced to answer why they do specific things certain ways. And once they adopted the specs they would secretly thank us for solving technical issues. 

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 40.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-29-2014 00:33
    I don't see anything wrong with that in principle but in the case of V bars (and pretty much everything else for that matter) there are a number of variables to take in to consideration including hardness of the capo, counterbearing angle, length of duplex scale, presence of pressure bar, to name a few.  Getting technicians to agree on the prescription will be a challenge.  This is true in many if not most areas of piano design.   

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 41.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-29-2014 14:59
    This is entirely in reference to front duplexes, though I may only
    specify "duplex", I am not speaking of the rear or anything other than
    front duplexes, tuned or otherwise.

    I realize this will have no effect whatsoever and is an utter waste of
    time, but I'll try once more to explain this.

    Del spent a considerable amount of time and effort researching these
    capo and duplex noises and determined that the major factors were duplex
    length and bearing angle. With a well shaped capo, these could be
    minimized to good effect but the system is very near the edge of function.

    Ron Overs also spent considerable time and effort trying to find an
    optimal de-tuned duplex that wouldn't make noise. He started where
    everyone else does with the capo, trying different hardness and shape
    configurations, moved to the counter bearing with different hardness and
    shape configurations and different de-tuning schemes. Like Del, he found
    that in the longer segments, there were enough partials coincident to
    the speaking length that were in the audible range, that he could hear
    them making noise he didn't want. The most recent photos of his rebuild
    work that I've seen had one half round counter bearing per section, and
    uniformly short duplexes. I looked for the photo, but haven't been able
    to find it. Perhaps he'll verify this or set me straight if I'm mistaken.

    In my own rebuild work, I've verified to my satisfaction that short
    uniform duplexes are a far cleaner termination than the typical tuned
    system. This is done with major rebuild and the owner's permission only,
    but I consider the results to be superior. Yes, the capo is also shaped
    as optimally as I can shape it as well.

    In all the years in this business, I've never heard any low tier piano
    without tuned duplexes make the noises that are so common to pianos with
    tuned duplexes. Perhaps they all have perfectly shaped capos in spite of
    their many other problems. One thing they do have is short quiet duplex
    segments.

    While I haven't made a life study of it, and have no electron microscope
    photographs or expert testimony to back it up, it has been my impression
    that Yamahas typically have a very uniform and very clean capo shape.
    Does anyone know differently? Yet Yamaha duplexes are commonly noisy.
    The noises, like Steinway, tend to be in the longer duplex segments,
    while the shorter are more typically quiet.

    Once a piano is built, and we have to deal with these noises, capo
    shaping, dabs of glue, and Pitch Lock fasteners are what we have to work
    with and can make the things function adequately for most, but capo
    shape isn't the root cause.

    Now comes the part where I'm characterized as condoning sloppy capo
    dressing, or some other stupid such thing. Knock yourself out.
    Ron N




  • 42.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-29-2014 15:43
    I would agree with all of that except that I think poorly shaped capos will make more noise (their own noise) than well shaped ones all things being equal.  At what point do they start to make noise, I can't really say.  But while optimizing the shape of a poorly shaped capo won't eliminate noise coming from tuned duplexes or long and shallow counterbearing segments it will eliminate noises coming from the capo itself.  It certainly did in this case when all other options had been exhausted.  Not the first time either. 

    We get noise from poorly shaped agraffes why would we not get them from poorly shaped capos?

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 43.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-29-2014 17:47
    Clark,

    Here's the real issue as I see it, and in your own words, "At what point do they start to make noise, I can't really say."

    If it can't be said from actual experience, then why attempt to say anything. Any other comments only speculation.

    The word "Maybe" and the expression I hear more often than I'd like in the circles I run in is, "Maybe it's this, maybe it's that."

    What substance does that actually provide?

    I tend to ignore such comments while respecting the a person's right to say such things by responding in kind, "Maybe?".

    Keith McGavern, RPT
    Shawnee, Oklahoma, USA
    kam544@allegiance.tv
    [Visual Tuning Platform User]
    [iRCT & OnlyPure ]



  • 44.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-29-2014 17:57
    David L,

    Actually, David, I feel you can say, can't you. What about the pictures I posted?
    Could you not reasonably state there would be issues with what is shown?

    On the other hand it would be appropriately reasonable to accept that there are piano player that might actual like the sounds that come forth from that very piano I have been tuning for more years than I care to remember.

    As a principal piano, well, that is another feedbag.

    I feel all contributions submitted thus far are very worthy of consideration in the entire spectrum of each individual instrument, and their particular use in the arena here it sits.

    No wrong, no right.

    Keith McGavern, RPT
    Shawnee, Oklahoma, USA
    kam544@allegiance.tv
    [Visual Tuning Platform User]
    [iRCT & OnlyPure ]



  • 45.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-29-2014 18:34
    Keith:

    It's very difficult to tell the actual profile from some of these pictures when shot from that angle.  However,  #1 seems like the left side is too flat.  #3 appears to be too large a radius, #4 the right side is too flat.  But, as I said, it's difficult to see clearly.  If I were pulling the plate on this piano to restring (or just restringing it) I would be dressing the capo bar to a more uniform shape. 

    Bottom line is that I don't see any problem arising from going through the work of uniformly shaping of the capo bar.  I do hear problems arising from poor shaping.   I don't know if this piano has problems or not or if it has other noise issues that might confuse the source.  I would never neglect to dress and shape the capo bar for fear of making things worse. 

    On the piano that opened this dialogue it was clear that there was a problem that could not be resolved any other way and when the bar was highlighted it was also clear that it was flattened out in some areas.  Not from wear but from the factory job (this piano was not very old).  When reshaped the problems disappeared or were minimized.  Tuned duplexes still make some noise, as Ron and others pointed out, but there is a difference between duplex noise and bad capo noise. 

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 46.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-29-2014 18:56
    Thank you for your input, David L. It is greatly appreciated.

    Otherwise, nothing will ever happen to this piano while on my watch other than tuning and minor voicing with a single needle through the strings. 

    Such is the way of life where I live. This piano serves its purpose.

    Keith McGavern, RPT
    Shawnee, Oklahoma, USA
    kam544@allegiance.tv
    [Visual Tuning Platform User]
    [iRCT & OnlyPure ]



  • 47.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-30-2014 00:01
    How many of you agree that the preferred string termination on the plate from about note 50 to 88 is to optimize conditions for the full function of a pivot termination?

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 48.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-30-2014 01:12
    A pivotal question!


    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 49.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-24-2015 00:42

    David et al,

    I have a Kawai GS-50 7' grand in my shop that was damaged from a house fire and from mild exposure to the NC mountains elements for over one year. Because of the severely rusted strings, I had no way of realistically evaluating the quality of the sound before I tore the piano apart. Now I'm ready to put the plate back into the piano. Before I do it, however, I want to dress the capo bar.

    Without resurrecting the previous conversation, here is what I have come to believe from that conversation and what I plan to do before the end of the year. Does this sound like a reasonable course of action?

    - A flat capo bar will cause unwanted sounds. 

    - A capo bar with deep grooves in it will cause unwanted sounds.

    - To shape the capo bar, make the angle on the speaking length side sharper than the angle on the tuning pin side. 

    - Removing all the string grooves in the capo bar is not necessary. Removing deep grooves in the capo bar, however, is necessary.

    My goal is to eliminate busy, dirty sounding false beats from the high treble. As long as I have the plate out, I want to improve the sound as much as possible...especially if it doesn't take that long to do.

    What do I not understand?

    ------------------------------
    John Parham, RPT
    Hickory, NC
    828-244-2487
    johnparham@piano88.com
    ------------------------------




  • 50.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 08-24-2015 00:51
    > What do I not understand?

    If you really intend to eliminate false beats in the treble, epoxying
    the bridge pins will have more effect than shaping the capo. But you
    ought to clean up the capo too. Some like them sharp, most didn't say. I
    like about like a #40 drill.
    Ron N




  • 51.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-30-2014 13:47
    On 7/29/2014 11:00 PM, Edward McMorrow via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
    > How many of you agree that the preferred string termination on the
    > plate from about note 50 to 88 is to optimize conditions for the full
    > function of a pivot termination?

    It doesn't have anything to do with opinion. It's a pivot, or rocking
    termination whatever the length of the duplex. As it is at agraffes and
    even bridge pins, though these aren't particularly useful pivots. There
    are no clamp terminations in pianos.

    Ron N




  • 52.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-30-2014 22:03
    <Ron N It doesn't have anything to do with opinion. It's a pivot, or rocking
    termination whatever the length of the duplex.

    The nature of the rocking, or rather the restraint imposed on that rocking movement has to be different when  #88's has a SL isf 52mm and duplex is 42mm, as opposed to #88's having a SL of 52mm & duplex of 20mm. I think Ron Overs recommendation of 10mm duplex shifts that ratio even further.

    They both rock, but less restraint means more scope for movement in the duplex...if movement there is what you want.

    Jim Ialeggio









    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Ialeggio
    grandpianosolutions.com
    Shirley, MA
    978 425-9026
    -------------------------------------------

    -










  • 53.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-30-2014 22:58
    I can remember a 1968 Steinway B that the capo bar was about .25" wide and flat. That certainly functioned more like a clamped termination than a pivot. And the euro style upright combo agraffes that have internal bearing are much like a clamped termination. And agraffes with high up-bearing into a string rest that is felt covered and placed right at the agraffe is very clamped.

    Bridge are supposed to be almost clamped terminations. No string movement should happen between the bridge pins that isn't locked to the resultant bridge/soundboard movement.

    Long duplex lengths paired with the shortest notes produces the greatest freedom of movement for the pivot. Of course the pitch relation between speaking length and duplex must not be in a whole number relationship. The speaking length will then be able to "control" the "pitch" of the "detuned" duplex. Any transverse mode energy that gets into the duplex length is returned in phase with the period of the speaking length. And the pivot termination reduces internal friction losses. And the hammer is better able to produce the fundamental. It is all driven by the wire stiffness.

    Aside from V-bar shape, the tonal problems with duplex scales are usually the duplex length being in a harmonic relationship with the speaking length. Longitudinal modes beating with each other in a unison at rates coincident with T-modes. And poorly graduated duplex ratios across the compass that create uneven pivot function. That create scale "breaks" where an abrupt switch from mostly clamped to mostly pivot termination.

    You can read all about this in my past Journal article and in the US patent application for my Fully Tempered Duplex Scale.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 54.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-30-2014 22:34
    On 7/30/2014 9:03 PM, Jim Ialeggio via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
    > <Ron N It doesn't have anything to do with opinion. It's a pivot, or
    > rocking termination whatever the length of the duplex.
    >
    > The nature of the rocking, or rather the restraint imposed on that
    > rocking movement has to be different when #88's has a SL isf 52mm
    > and duplex is 42mm, as opposed to #88's having a SL of 52mm & duplex
    > of 20mm. I think Ron Overs recommendation of 10mm duplex shifts that
    > ratio even further.
    >
    > They both rock, but less restraint means more scope for movement in
    > the duplex...if movement there is what you want.

    My modification of Baldwin's individual termination system produces 10mm
    duplex segments and a beautifully clean termination. It makes no noise
    at all, which is precisely what I want. I don't want a duplex draining
    energy from the speaking length and making noise, and those short
    segments do the job very nicely. I typically get about 20mm lengths in
    most conversions, which is also very clean and clear - just as I want.

    Ron N




  • 55.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-30-2014 23:11

    <Ron N  I don't want a duplex draining energy from the speaking length


    I'm not sure I buy the physics of this statement. At least not in its entirety. The exclusion of other non length related vectors through which energy is lost...notably relative stiffness, is missing from the equation.

    On the one hand, you are saying both long and short duplex designs rock...agreed. This implies some sort of equivalence between the two designs.

    However, on the other hand you are differentiating between the two somewhat equivalent designs, assuming one leaks energy and the other doesn't. Where are losses in the form of heat, and which design will tend to lose more to heat? does the short duplex have one flavor of loss, while the long duplex has another?  If so, are the losses proportional to length only or proportional to both length and stiffness?

    Noise in the duplex is one thing, and I agree I have no desire to experience this kind of noise. But musically useful sound, if controlled, can create a color to the high treble sound that can be missing from a model where no sound, noise or otherwise, is in the realm of human hearing. If the termination that can allow duplex movement without the vibrating string striking the casting, long duplex lengths creating vibrations closer to or in the range of sound audible to people, and objectionable portions of that audible sound filtered, I'm hearing some musical evidence that makes experimenting with this aspect of termination at least worth a serious look-see.

    Jim Ialeggio


    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Ialeggio
    grandpianosolutions.com
    Shirley, MA
    978 425-9026
    -------------------------------------------

    <ron n="" it="" doesn't="" have="" anything="" to="" do="" with="" opinion.="" it's="" a="" pivot,="" or


  • 56.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-30-2014 23:28
    On 7/30/2014 10:11 PM, Jim Ialeggio via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
    > <Ron N I don't want a duplex draining energy from the speaking
    > length
    >
    >
    > I'm not sure I buy the physics of this statement.

    Then don't. I don't care to even try to convince you of anything at all.
    Ron N




  • 57.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 07-31-2014 07:52
    The reasoning, not the result or the personal preference, but the reasoning, as stated as a physical basis, needs to be supported with evidence, not stated as a dictum.

    Jim Ialeggio

    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Ialeggio
    grandpianosolutions.com
    Shirley, MA
    978 425-9026
    -------------------------------------------
    <ron n="" i="" don't="" want="" a="" duplex="" draining="" energy="" from="" the="" speaking


  • 58.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-31-2014 10:53
    The issue, it seems, is at what point loss of energy through the duplex becomes a problem.  Since the duplex is a pivot under all circumstances then energy is always crossing over.  The difference between a short duplex, a long duplex, a short duplex, each with varying counterbearing angles, tuned or untuned is a pretty difficult task to measure except in terms of sustain in the speaking length, al other things being equal (AOTBE).  And to that I can only comment that I'm not sure I could definitively state that longer duplexes are necessarily deficient, that the greater loss of energy rises to a level of being a problem.  Upright pianos tend to be the shortest and most rigidly clamped with the pressure bar in place.  I certainly wouldn't draw the conclusion, necessarily, that they produce superior treble sections, though they do seem to be without issues that tuned duplexes have.  

    My general approach to this has been if the duplex angle is high then longer duplexes function just fine (AOTBE).  If the angle is lower then they need to be short.  In longer duplex sections with high counterbearing angles I have not found that worrying about them being tuned is worth the trouble.  If you have a long tuned duplex with a low counterbearing angle then there can be problems.  The problems can be compounded be poor shaping of the capo and by the duplexes being tuned.  In those cases a strong argument can be made for either detuning the duplex, increasing the counterbearing angle, properly shaping the capo bar to a narrower point or all three. 

    That doesn't answer the question about whether longer duplexes sound different than shorter duplexes.  I think they do.  The longer the duplex the more it contributes to the tonal envelope, albeit in a subtle way.  Assuming it's not accompanied by other problems just described, I don't find it a problem and wouldn't necessarily alter the design of a piano just to achieve a short duplex.  I don't find that longer duplexes compromise sustain to the extent that I would consider it a problem or even noticeable AOTBE. 
    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 59.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-31-2014 15:24
    Taking it back to Ed's first question - 
    "How many of you agree that the preferred string termination on the plate from about note 50 to 88 is to optimize conditions for the full function of a pivot termination?" -
    that's a pretty absolute question that doesn't have an absolute answer - if it does, I'd say the answer is no.

    What characteristics optimize a pivot function? Top of the list, I think, are low deflecting angle and long duplex section. You can take those to extremes, and maybe they don't hold. What would a 1 degree angle do, for instance? I guess it would "maximize pivot" in theory, but it would be useless as a termination. So you have to start with enough angle to produce a "clean" termination. Then the length of the duplex section (or whatever you design on that side) will also enter the equation. Maximum pivot would seem to be "infinite" length, but being practical it would be longer than anyone would want to use, for any number of practical reasons.

    IOW, just on the basis of these considerations, the question is flawed, at least if taken literally. The pivot function is an important factor, but it depends on other factors. If you already have a design (at least angle and duplex distance), you might ask the question with respect to that design, but you'd be limited now to other factors that would affect pivot function, one of which is wire/capo interface. Is that where you meant the question to head, Ed?


    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------



  • 60.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-31-2014 21:55
    For adequate string pivot termination, the counter bearing angle must produce sufficient restraining force that under no circumstances can the wave excursion on the string allow the string to leave the pivot contact point. There is no magic angle in my experience. Many pianos have a much steeper angle than is required and this makes them tune slower. The counter bearing angle has no bearing on whether the termination can pivot. In general if the counter-bearing angle is sufficient to maintain exact string spacing and cause the wire to indent the narrow soft V-bar-that is all you need.

    So Fred, you think a .25", flat string termination surface can still pivot the string?

    My question is whether any of us agree that in the treble the string must be able to pivot about the plate termination point.

     If we do agree, than my next question is "do you all think the string terminations should not distort the round shape of the wire where the string contacts the pivot termination point'?

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 61.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-01-2014 11:02
    Ed,
    Right, we have to start by assuming an angle that provides "adequate termination," which is probably more of an angle than what would produce maximum pivot. 

    I do not advocate for or accept a flat .25" capo surface. OTOH, I do accept a .25" radius capo surface (curved surface with that radius). It is difficult to know how long a flat surface would be significantly flat for purposes of this kind of discussion. How about a 1 mm flat surface? A 2 mm? It is like the angle question, and I doubt there is a specific point to be defined. Hence, I prefer that the surface be curved.

    "Must be able to pivot around the plate termination point" is a bit different from "optimize conditions for the full function of a pivot termination," but I am following you better. 

    As for distorting the round cross section of the wire, I am not clear that any surface used for termination, regardless of shape or material, distorts that cross section, at least measurably or significantly. The wire bends if there is an offset angle, which is necessary for termination. That distortion of the wire is not dependent on the material or shape of the termination. I am guessing you are asserting that some shape or material or both DOES distort the cross section, in which case you need to provide your data to back that up. The only condition I can see that would cause such distortion is friction in the course of tuning, but I have not observed it in pulling off old wires - not that I have used a microscope, just a loupe.

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 62.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-01-2014 11:36
    Fred,
    Take small file to the capo under the plate strut of a Yamaha and listen to the sound. If working the file sound a lot like rubbing two files together-you will have found a hard capo. Remove a treble string and use a magnifying glass to examine the bend at the V-bar contact point. You should find it flattened very slightly. Better yet, look at a treble string from an SD-10 or SF-10 Baldwin.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 63.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-01-2014 21:55
    Ed,
    Not having a Baldwin SD available, I looked at a 40 year old Yamaha G2 with original strings, removed a string from the top section. I examined it with a loupe (could see no flattening with magnifiers of lesser power). With the loupe, one of the two capo surfaces had a flat spot, the other did not. The flat spot was a little under 1 cm long, and its width was about 1/3 the diameter of the wire (holding it to light to catch a reflection, I could judge the shiny surface vs. the rest of the wire. Not precise, but close). Since this was an ambiguous observation, I took off another wire, and got the same result, one wire with flattening (same amount), the other without. I also confirmed the capo was hardened, though I use feel rather than sound. It is obvious if the file is biting metal, or mostly sliding on the surface. It was fairly hard, though not as hard as file metal.

    I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe hardened capos result in somewhat flattened string profiles, at least sometimes. When I have time to spare, I'll look at strings on a piano with non-hardened capo for comparison. That said, how significant is this flattening? 1/3 the diameter. I blew that up with a model - a lid from a plastic container I had handy. The lid was 120 mm in diameter. I took a 40 mm length and put each end on the circumference. I then measured from the middle of that line through the center of the circle, and measured 114 mm. Hence, the flattening was about 5% of the circumference.

    So if this is the extent of the flattening phenomenon (if it exists consistently), and you are asking "do you all think the string terminations should not distort the round shape of the wire where the string contacts the pivot termination point?" my guess is the difference will be so little as to be insignificant. In my mind's eye, I see that as a very minor detail in the midst of other capo/string interface factors. Perhaps you can persuade me differently.

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 64.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 07-31-2014 22:07

    Uprights have a particular sound in the treble that is not like the sound quality of a properly functioning pivot termination treble in a grand. Uprights are more nasal and pinched sounding. More partials less fundamental. They sound like uprights, not grands and I think this is to a great degree because of the minimal pivot termination found there.

    The only time there is a "loss" of energy with a duplex is when the duplex is tuned to a partial. (What is really happening is energy transfer, it is not "lost", it is just moved into a different frequency.) Then the duplex rings out with energy stolen from the speaking length.
    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 65.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-01-2014 10:16
    It seems to me that anytime the energy crosses the barrier of the capo there will be some energy loss (transfer) to the air, plate, etc., whether the duplex is tuned or not. 

    Anyway, where is this all going?

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 66.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 08-01-2014 11:04
    <David L Anyway, where is this all going?

    On the one hand, the capo bar and plate in these areas, relative to the string forces exerted and frequencies involved, may not be as rigid as we might think. But then on the other hand, a "soft-ish" counterbearing like co-polymer(which I really like for lots of reasons), helps quiet some frequencies in a long duplex but preserves others. Sustain can be great with this soft-ish material ( a relative term).

    I've been thinking about this in relation to duplex noise and particularly tuned partial duplex noise. I wonder if the fierce expenditure of energy in a long tuned duplex, is about the duplex hitting a natural frequency...ie, the instantaneous expenditure of energy driving the string excursion into a non-optimally shaped capo termination. The MO of a matched natural frequency is instantaneous unto explosive expenditure of all available energy...talk about wasting energy.

    In a long well configured duplex, we may be simply trying to avoid a natural frequency, allowing energy to be used in a sustained and controlled fashion. Controlled release of energy does not drive the string excursion to the extent a natural frequency does...hence some capos whose non contact points are dangerously close to being hit by the string in wild excursion, may not hit it when there is controlled excursion. Thus the potential problem areas, which require constant attention on some pianos, become problems as hammers, regulation, or whatever drives that duplex which is already on the edge, beyond the edge.

    So maybe its not about energy loss in the system as much as about avoiding spending the whole wad instantaneously. In the lower frequencies the soundboard structure, at least in my experience provides the necessary impedance to avoid these natural frequencies. However, in 69-88, avoiding the explosive frequencies is probably carried out primarily by the configuration of the terminations. Along these lines, I have eliminated the last treble rib, and in talking to Del, it seems he's doesn't think that rib does anything either, and has eliminated it as well in some of his own work.      

    Jim Ialeggio 

    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Ialeggio
    grandpianosolutions.com
    Shirley, MA
    978 425-9026
    -------------------------------------------


















  • 67.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-04-2014 10:48
    Just to clean up a bit, this is a bit off topic but I meant to comment on this earlier since it appeared here in this thread.  I would be very cautious about his, myself.  It's important to note that Del installs a treble fish which narrows the upper treble considerably and, last time I checked, does no panel thinning in that region either.  Thus the last section is quite stiff on its own and the presence of a rib probably puts it over the top.  If you use more conventional areas in the width of the panel in that section and/or thin the area behind the bridge (as I do--both that is) then the rib certainly does do something and something quite significant.  The other issue is whether or not the rib contributes to soundboard stability, which I believe it does.  Without it you may find some greater tuning instability in that section. 

    If this discussion is to continue it probably makes sense to reconvene in a new thread. 

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------
    snip..

    Along these lines, I have eliminated the last treble rib, and in talking to Del, it seems he's doesn't think that rib does anything either, and has eliminated it as well in some of his own work.      

    Jim Ialeggio 

    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Ialeggio
    grandpianosolutions.com
    Shirley, MA
    978 425-9026
    -------------------------------------------























  • 68.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 08-06-2014 00:40
    In a board Del designed for a S&S D for me there is a fish and the board was thinned to 6 mm in that region. Seems that there were 21 (radial) ribs on that board, if I recall correctly.

    -------------------------------------------
    Alan McCoy
    Spokane WA
    ahm2352@gmail.com
    -------------------------------------------




  • 69.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-06-2014 09:55
    I would guess in that design the top rib that Jim referred to was not eliminated.

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 70.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-01-2014 11:29
    The engineering of a fine piano is a study on "artful losses" of energy. Starting with the action and hammers. But extending into the strings and soundboard/plate structures. Softer piano wire that damps L-mode has been found to be very useful musically for example in certain places of the piano scale. I have found there is much to be gained in pianos by controlling how energy is distributed between "noise" and "tone".

    What I am trying to get at in this conversation is what and why my peers don't understand about V-bars/duplex, etc. Before I age out of life, I would like to secure some real improvement in something. I fix things for a living. I would like to even play a role in helping others to keep fixing things in the future.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 71.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-01-2014 17:32
    I was writing a response and posting some attachments when suddenly the posting disappeared, though the attachments somehow came through.  Stupid system.

    Let me try again...

    As I was saying, controlling energy between noise and tone is important, I agree.  Attached are two photos from a Kawai CE-11, small upright.  One photo shows the treble section around note 70 the other the low tenor.  Both show the shape of the V-Bar to be triangular narrowed to quite a small point.  The treble section duplex length and angle are similar to a Bosendorfer, interestingly enough (sorry not pictures).   The treble section of this piano is quite clear, little noise.  A spectrum analysis (Verituner) shows a strong fundamental with a slightly less strong 2nd partial.  Higher partials were not present on the Verituner display but Fido did not start barking uncontrollably as I was testing.  I found little to complain about in the treble section either in terms of tonal balance or clarity.  Not a particularly distinguished piano.

    So I'm not sure where this is going still.  This is a relatively short duplex with accompanying appropriate angle quite tunable), "sharpened" v-bar,  clear and balanced tone even given the limitations of the instrument.  I've less impressive treble sections on many high quality grands.

    If the purpose of this exercise (Ed) is to test us mere mortals I'm not that interested.  Please get to the point.  I'm not sure what it is yet or if you haven't already made it.   

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 72.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-02-2014 11:39
    Where I hope this goes is, that piano technicians come to a consensus about what the plate terminations for the string should be like for maximum performance, longevity, and value for pianists. I think it is ridiculous that any technician should have to shape a V-bar or chamfer agraffe string holes. The factory can do this work far more cost effective than we can. It is also ridiculous that the string terminations should damage piano wire. It is also ridiculous that plate string terminations create buzzes.

    When my book, The Educated Piano came out. Steinway NY bought 7 copies. At the next PTG convention Michael Mohr told me after he read my section on capo bars he went and looked at all the different capo specifications the factory has. He found one exactly like I was advocating.

    We piano techs have to start representing the pianists best interests. That will enhance our professional standing The piano manufacturers can't do this. They are not going to get together and set specs in unison.

    I have done the homework on this issue for over thirty years. Time to take the test to the industry. I need your help.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 73.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-02-2014 16:47
    Well, Ed, I think you are jumping the gun. It is maybe slightly conceivable that a consensus can be reached among piano technicians about plate terminations, but as for whether that consensus will center on your own ideas, well, I am pretty skeptical but willing to give you the opportunity to make your case. Maybe you can persuade a significant number of techs that your ideas have merit. I suggest you start with that goal in mind. Which means explaining just exactly what you believe to be the case and why, not playing Socratic games (let's all agree on step one. Everybody there? OK, now step 2. Agreed? etc.) which seems to be your current modus operandi.

    I'd suggest that you also dismount from your high horse, from which you say you have written it all already (in your book, in your article, in your patent application) so everyone should just read those. Your article was so filled with obscure verbiage it was all I could do to extract one or two nuggets - and then I was left wondering whether they mattered in the real world or not. If it matters to you that people understand your ideas, and that all the work you have put in might have a lasting result, the ball is in YOUR court, not everybody else's. Dusty shelves of libraries are filled with ideas of genius that never reached the fruition their inventors imagined. And that is not everybody else's fault. 

    Edison said invention is 5% inspiration, 95% perspiration. But that is just the beginning of the story. Successful invention is 95-99% explanation and promotion, however brilliant the invention is (and then it is likely to be stolen by someone else, but that is another story). Maybe there are exceptions, but not in the piano world, where the ratio of inventions that were adopted to those that were not is surely far less than 1 : 100, more like 1 : 100000. And many of those that disappeared into oblivion were excellent ideas, even practical ones - if they could be adopted more or less universally.

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 74.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 08-02-2014 18:53
    Fred S: Successful invention is 95-99% explanation and promotion

    Absolutely!  Were that this were not so...but it is so. Ignore or deny it at your peril and the peril of your ideas.

    Those whose ideas have flourished, flourished because they were able to sell the ideas in a form others could understand. In addition, they  flourished because the inventor or agent of the inventor was able create a step-by-step procedure which would allow others who lack the inventor's design smarts to implement step-by-step, without undo confusion, failures and mucking around.

    Look around at successful ideas which have been successfully adopted and accepted as creditable, and you will see, without exception ideas which were marketed...sorry, yes I said marketed...with vigour, effectiveness, repeatedly, and repeatedly over a long periods of time. The marketing is by necessity accompanied by effective, clear explanation, extreme patience to repeat things over and over and over, patience to meet and constructively deal with challenges, and ...sorry to say...recipes.

    The recipes part will grate with most creative folk...but success of great ideas in the general tech community requires this mundane, pain in the butt, recipe part which can seem self defeating and like missing the point to creative folk. It can seem like "dumbing down" and pandering to lazy minds...but most of the world functions on a different plane than the artists and inventors..they must be met at or at least near their plane of mind or you will lose them.

    Jim Ialeggio

       



     


    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Ialeggio
    grandpianosolutions.com
    Shirley, MA
    978 425-9026
    -------------------------------------------
     



  • 75.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-02-2014 21:25
    I won't be satisfied until every piano manufacturer knows that professional piano technicians want the V-bars to be shaped to BE V-BARS. With a fully functioning pivot termination on materials soft enough that the round shape of the piano wire is not changed by contact with the V-bar. And I would be ecstatic if pianists were made aware of the importance of only purchasing pianos with properly configured V-bars. What David started this topic with should not be needed. The pianos should come correct from the factory. In todays CNC machine world this is a very easy proposition.

    If you read the section in my book from some 30 years ago, and I tell you that I continue to apply the prescription described, I trust you would consider it significant evidence of success. 

    Fred, please re-read my Journal article on the Fully Tempered Duplex Scale and post questions for me. There is also a thread on PianoWorld that answers some questions-so you might want to check it out. I tried to make the PTG Journal article comprehensible. Patent writing has gotten very opaque and I spent some money getting my attorney to not muddy up the original writeup. So I understand why you would not want to wade through the whole thing. But these are the times we live in!

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 76.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-03-2014 09:54
    A worthy goal but I wouldn't hold my breath.  There are various areas where factory work doesn't match custom work and probably never will except with a very small handful of manufacturers.  It is unfortunate when these things force "repairs" on relatively new pianos but it does happen and that's what I hoped to address here.   

    That being said, I agree with your shaping goals with softer capos, the procedure I outlined in this thread mirrors your approach and is my standard approach on Steinway pianos (I've not encountered a very hard capo on a Steinway yet).  In contrast, Ron Overs goes through a procedure of hardening the V-bar to a much greater degree than occurs on Steinway pianos.  How that fits together with his philosophy about capo shape, I don't really know for sure.  Perhaps Ron will comment at some point on the subject.   I believe I've heard Del Fandrich discuss using metal rod inlaid into the capo under certain circumstance but I don't want to speak for him and don't recall without digging through some old, collected posts, the diameter or hardness of the recommended material.

    There are various ways to approach this, clearly.  There are also likely some bad combinations and good combinations of features.  Some of those we've touched upon.  So while there is more than one legitimate approach we probably shouldn't let that allow us to come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what we do there.  I think it does. 

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 77.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-03-2014 11:07
    Can you bring up in your "tonal memory" the typical quality you would expect to hear from a 1970's Kimball console? That nasal, thin, plinky tone? Much of that is due to the use of the round rod termination. Even think of Walter studios. Nice pianos, but still with that "thin" tone. They have round rod terminations. (I have one in my living room as the second piano, if I could get Klinke to make me agraffes to my specs I would tap the plate for agraffes above the bass break as a test case.) Yamaha tried the round rod on a few grands and boy what a disaster. There is always that specter of nasal or thin tone associated with the round rod. Hardening capo/V-bars is even further down the road of madness. It is a testament to the strength of modern piano wire that it holds up at all when treated like this.

    I don't think putting a proper shape to a V-bar is "customization"-it is repairing a factory defect. I have seen pianos over 100 years old with original strings and narrow, soft V-bar shape-no problems with them at all. So the knowledge has been around at least that long if not from the 1872 Steinway Duplex Scale patent that described pivot termination. 

    I am hoping some of you will join me in taking a stand against bad plate termination madness.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 78.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-03-2014 18:09
    Ed,
    I read the thread on Piano World, and it seems that your theories about L modes are entirely hypothetical:

    "I do not know how to verify these descriptions with measurement. I do not see how the L-modes could be measured because the strings are so close together that there is no room for discrete magneto pickups. But I think my hypotheses is proven by the design it inspired. There are simply no other vibratory mode mechanisms to use to describe the origins of the sounds. Ellis's work proves L and T-mode beating/coupling."

    And in a later post, "I most definitely have proven that a FTDS duplex design in the treble makes the tone better than any other prior art. I have the single most important proof; the pianos! Now we are left to argue why. I have tried my best to use what is known about L-mode and T-modes and their interactions to explain why. The FTDS is the result of the test of my hypotheses."

    So that explains a lot. Not measured, not calculated, but hypothetical. A lot of use of the argument that certain phenomena "can only be explained by" something to do with L modes (a recurring theme in your article as well). And that essentially you are relying on the sound of the pianos you have altered as your "proof." Well, I guess there isn't a lot to discuss, then, on a theoretical plane. I was in Seattle at the convention, where you said your piano would be in the exhibit hall. It was not. I asked, and you said it would be in your class on, as I recall, either Saturday or Sunday. In any case, I was teaching and couldn't attend. So in spite of at least a decent effort, I didn't get the opportunity to hear your "proof" (though your effort to make that available was not exactly stellar).

    What I am missing in your article is specifics. There is a lot of hypothesizing about L and T modes, and altering their interaction, which as far as I can tell is fluff (you may not think so, but you apparently are just spouting as far as I can tell). There are small clues about use of materials (Acetal co-polymer duplex rests, to act as a damping mechanism) and some basic notions about changing duplex lengths (longer in high treble, shorter toward the agraffes to blend), but zero specifics. So it is essentially worthless information for me: a lot of theories but with no specific concrete application. The photo is perhaps the most helpful element, as it shows an actual array of duplex lengths, that are not well described in the text. 

    Maybe some day I will hear one of your pianos and be blown away by it. And then maybe I will have some questions. Meanwhile, I will remain agnostic.

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 79.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-03-2014 23:51
    Fred,
    Thanks for reading the FTDS material. Sorry you do not find anything useful in them. And I am sorry you were unable to play the pianos I brought to Bellevue. I was led to believe they would be able to be shown after class times but that turned out not to be popular with certain powers to be. Did you talk to anyone who did play them? Ed Sutton tried them and after only two or three minutes playing up and down the scale and looking at them said "Now this is different!".

    Do you agree that once the pivot termination is configured to the proper V-shape of a soft gray iron plate that no buzz or significant whistle noises can arise from V-bar/string interaction? Do you agree that if the duplex length is in a whole number or harmonic relationship with the fundamental that disruptive T-modes are created? Do you agree that even when the duplex length is not in a harmonic T-mode relationship with the speaking length, some duplex whistles still occur. Do you agree that L-modes exist in taut piano strings? Why do some technicians find it necessary to mute some of the duplex lengths? Do you hear a tone change between the capo/duplex section and the agraffe section? Do you think it is possible for inaudible L-modes in unison strings to create beats in the audible frequency range? And if you do, do you think it is possible for these audible L-mode beats to be coincident with T-modes? Do you know that neither Podelsak, Lee, Conklin, Ellis and many other L-mode researchers have been able to derive a workable formula for predicting L-mode frequency? I apologize for being worse at math that they are.

    The FTDS includes elements involving: capo bar mounting, reinforcement, shape and noise transmission; hitching length proportions across the scale; vertical bearing string terminations on the bridge; matching the useable duplex ratios across the compass to blend from maximum pivot termination with the shortest strings-to the more clamped termination of the agraffes in a way that produces a more even, clear, and projecting treble tone; making duplex rests that are highly damped to L-mode and mostly undamped to T-mode.

    As to referring to the 15 some pianos I have installed some elements of the FTDS technology on as "hypothetical". Well, I posed the hypotheses of the origin of some of the whistle noises of the duplex scale by extrapolating from the existing state of the art of understanding of L-modes. Tested a modified duplex configuration that controls L-modes. And the duplex whistles all went away without damping T-modes. I would say a proof by example is the most powerful way to innovate with engineering. There is much calculation regarding proportions across the compass.





    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 80.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-03-2014 23:58
    Thanks David Love for posting the Kawai V-bar photo. I have seen that Kawai seems to have become one of the best about V-bar shape. Probably Don Mannino's hand in there.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 81.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-04-2014 09:53
    I would consider this shape a good illustration of my target at the beginning of this thread and in general, duplex lengths notwithstanding.  Pianos previously mentioned such as the Baldwin SD-10 or any with the hardened "contraption" does change things, however.  Fixing that tambourine is another discussion, though Ron Nossaman has previously posted a nice illustration of a way to deal with those.

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 82.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-04-2014 17:59
    Ed: "Do you agree that once the pivot termination is configured to the proper V-shape of a soft gray iron plate that no buzz or significant whistle noises can arise from V-bar/string interaction? Do you agree that if the duplex length is in a whole number or harmonic relationship with the fundamental that disruptive T-modes are created? Do you agree that even when the duplex length is not in a harmonic T-mode relationship with the speaking length, some duplex whistles still occur. Do you agree that L-modes exist in taut piano strings? Why do some technicians find it necessary to mute some of the duplex lengths? Do you hear a tone change between the capo/duplex section and the agraffe section? Do you think it is possible for inaudible L-modes in unison strings to create beats in the audible frequency range? And if you do, do you think it is possible for these audible L-mode beats to be coincident with T-modes? Do you know that neither Podelsak, Lee, Conklin, Ellis and many other L-mode researchers have been able to derive a workable formula for predicting L-mode frequency? I apologize for being worse at math that they are."

    That's quite a barrage of questions. Do I agree with all your "do you agree" questions? No, I do not, to put it simply. In particular, with regard to what I was writing concerning your assertions about longitudinal modes in piano strings, I agree that L-modes exist, but not that they are significant even in mid treble, let alone high treble - they are far too high-pitched, probably unmeasurable for that reason, and have far too little force to have an effect on transverse modes of strings. You have certainly not persuaded me that they are a significant factor, other than in your imagination.

    Ed: "The FTDS includes elements involving: capo bar mounting, reinforcement, shape and noise transmission; hitching length proportions across the scale; vertical bearing string terminations on the bridge; matching the useable duplex ratios across the compass to blend from maximum pivot termination with the shortest strings-to the more clamped termination of the agraffes in a way that produces a more even, clear, and projecting treble tone; making duplex rests that are highly damped to L-mode and mostly undamped to T-mode."

    Sounds like you are throwing a lot of untested, undeveloped concepts at the patent office, hoping something will stick (I believe you mentioned a total of 44 "claims" in a post on PianoWorld). Some of the ideas might lead to something, if they were given serious testing and development, but they would need considerable work to bring them to usable form. As to how significant a change (improvement?) any of them might make, and whether it would be perceived as positive, that is a very open question.

    You have not responded to my post about the Yamaha with its hardened capo, and its possible wear of strings at their bearing points. I am not at all convinced that hardened bearing points are a bad thing, myself. Certainly wear/deformation of strings seems to be a negligible concern, to the best of my knowledge and experience.

    All in all, I think I have had enough of this conversation, and I will probably disappear from it. I wish you all the best in your campaign to try to get piano manufacturers to see reason, as defined by Ed McMorrow.

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 83.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-05-2014 00:26
    Fred,
    All the questions were because you faulted the clarity of my explanations and I wanted to know what I missed. So I am sorry that you seem to feel insulted by me with all the questions, that was not my intent. Now you just plain say I am wrong. With nothing to back you up about that.

    Have you ever wondered why Ellis, Conklin and others have so much difficulty accurately measuring L-modes? It is because L-mode energy is extremely sensitive to boundary conditions. That is all the evidence I needed to sustain my decision to try out L-mode damping string rests. No one has come up with a workable formula for calculating L-modes-so why do I have to do that before I invent something?

    Podelsak and Lee think that L-modes are significant to piano tone quality everywhere in the compass. Do you think it is possible for inaudible L-modes to produce audible beats? I have invented no physics here. I have carefully measured the T-mode relations among duplex scales and they do not account for all the sounds we hear associated with this feature. So where do some of these "whistles" come from in treble notes where the T-modes are distant between duplex and speaking length, and the plate termination is configured to be a "NO BUZZ ZONE"? So why does the treble tone of a piano change when the duplex is rearranged?

     It was a process of elimination that I went through to come to my hypotheses. Something like: there is a whistle noise in this note; the V-bar is perfect; all the tone regulation is perfect; the duplex length is quite distant from T-mode harmonic relation with the speaking length; AHA, the boundary conditions are insufficient to limit L-mode to the speaking length; (remember the T-modes go across the V-bar so why can't the L-modes); AHA, the unison speaking lengths are unequal; (L-modes produce beats for Jim Ellis);  If the whistle I am hearing is beats between L-modes at a rate that is close to the T-modes; they could be the whistle! 

    Now if I can damp the L-modes at the duplex without affecting T-modes I may be able to eliminate the whistle. Found some good stuff. Tried it out. Whistles gone. Rinse, wash, repeat many times to tweak all the parameters. Hmm, this does seem new, maybe I should try to insure I will get adequate recognition for this. Patents are mostly worthless but you never know. 

    Then I realize how to improve the clarity, warmth, and evenness across the scale, especially in the treble, by placing the proportions properly across the compass. Plus the tuning process is smoother because the strings render better. 

    If you feel the capo bar while you are playing notes, you can sense the noise vectors. Then I made temporary clamps to change the sensitivity of the capo to specific vectors, incorporated damping materials and noted the changed sound. I am not saying I can feel the L-modes, they are far too high to be felt.That is the testing I did to rough in most of the technology claimed. The hitching lengths progression across the compass will have to wait for a prototype, but it comes from modifying bridges to reduce rocking motion and the implications of T-modes behind the bridge.

    I am not trying to get tenure. I am trying to solve problems and if possible secure the property rights of patent protection. So constructing an example of what I am claiming IS a proof. It is just not a proof that the descriptions I used are perfect. They don't need to be for a patent. As long as I am not making up new physics-the burden of proof is that what I am claiming is new. I could be totally wrong on the physics and still have a valid patent.

    (By the way there are patents that are involving quantum states that no one in academia has figured out the physics for yet.)

    I thought I did respond to your Yamaha test. I will again; any deformation of the round shape of piano wire by the termination points is destructive to the longevity and musicality of the piano. It is a testament to the strength of piano wire that it can endure so much abuse at the hands of piano makers. But cleaner sounds come from idealized pivot in the treble, and flattening of the wire weakens it. I think that is obvious. Just because you can get away with it for thirty years doesn't mean it is best for piano owners. Anything that increases the cost of piano ownership is a detriment to our interests. The market responds by further limiting the use of pianos. Piano technicians should represent the interests of pianists as much as possible.





    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 84.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-06-2014 09:47
    Ed,
    I can see you have read a fair bit of literature about longitudinal mode in strings, and I am sure you are sincere in your belief that you have made an important discovery. However, you have not really digested what you read. True, it is difficult to measure/read the longitudinal mode component in strings, in isolation from the transverse mode. But it can be done and has been done. True, it is difficult to impossible to model mathematically the pitch of longitudinal modes as they occur in pianos, but this is only true of arriving at the kind of precision needed for the purposes Ellis and Conklin were addressing, since the precise pitch matters so much: it is only when the pitch is quite close to that of high partials of bass and tenor strings that the coupling effect occurs, causing "whistles" or however you want to describe it. The pitch of the longitudinal mode in isolation can be calculated precisely, but then piano components come into play, things like bridge height, length of tails, etc., as explained by Jim Ellis in his excellent patent description. I'd strongly suggest anyone who wants to try to understand longitudinal and transverse modes should read Ellis' patent: it has a long introduction explaining how waves are formed in the string, how the initial deformation resolves into the standing waves that produce partials, etc.

    One thing is very, very clear: longitudinal waves are high pitched (and transient - they decay rapidly unless they couple with transverse waves). They tend to be around the 15th partial in those bass and tenor strings where they produce a problem. A recent (2010) study published in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America looked at the issue of how high in the scale the longitudinal component is relevant. This has to do with the fact that longitudinal waves form an important part of the prompt tone of strings, the attack sound that later resolves when the standing waves are formed. They found that this component could be heard up to about C5 (not heard at all above that point), but that it was very subtle above about A3. 

    Now you may well have developed a technique for reducing high pitched components in duplexes, but using a different material for string rests. Asserting that what you are doing is damping longitudinal modes is pure and utter invention based on imagination, not on any science whatsoever. So it is fairly useless to continue any conversation along those lines, until you have brought your thinking in line with reality.

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 85.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-06-2014 23:14
    There are other accessible books on the acoustics that are a bit broader but cover similar material.  Arthur Benade's "Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics" covers the issues of longitudinal and transverse waves in strings both struck and plucked.  Very readable and doesn't require mathematics for those who aren't able to deal with that part of the discussion.   A very good book generally and much information can be drawn from it with respect to hammers as well. 

    The question of whether or not the longitudinal wave is audible in the duplex scale is one that I can't really answer definitively. But it seems unlikely considering both the frequency and the amount of other noise that occurs simultaneously during what must by the L wave's short life expectancy. 

    The L wave from the speaking length is not likely to travel across the capo barrier.  When the hammer hits the string a wave is generated in both directions, one toward the bridge and the other toward the V bar.   More likely the energy from the speaking length that travels toward the capo bar gives rise to a new L wave in the duplex scale section depending on the impedance characteristics of the barrier which in turn gives rise to the transverse waves and this feedback loop transfers energy back and forth across the V bar until the energy dissipates.  This is not unlike what happens if you pluck the duplex scale and notice that the speaking length is also excited by that energy input.  Once plucked if you then damp the duplex with your finger there is little energy loss as a result from the speaking side.  However, the energy in the duplex dissipates relatively quickly (as it does in the speaking length in that section) and any additional energy provided by the duplex after a very short amount of time is of little consequence in terms of what we hear.  So it seems unlikely that the L wave (which dissipates even faster than any transverse waves) would continue to contribute long enough to produce a whistle or other such associated sounds.  More likely these noises are a function of poor terminations on either end of the duplex segments combined with sympathetic vibrations associated with them being tuned to the speaking length that causes them to continue to vibrate longer than they would, or could, otherwise. 

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 86.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-06-2014 23:49
    David,
    Lord Rayleigh took a metal rod and connected it to a grand piano soundboard and ran it some one or two floors above and connected that end to a violin soundboard. When the piano was played you could hear the piano sound coming from the violin. Longitudinal motion carried all the piano sound right along that steel rod.

    I would not be surprised if half the L-mode energy was passed over the capo in the treble. Remember it is stiffness driven and the short treble strings are the stiffest and much of the circumference of the string is not contacting anything at the V-bar. The capo certainly can vibrate from L-modes and the L-mode period and capo period would certainly interact creating another complex relationship.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 87.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-07-2014 00:30
    I will also add to my Lord Rayleigh comment that Ellis had great problems resolving L-mode frequency on his first generation mono-chord testing bed. He used a channel iron with a pressure bar between the legs which created some pivot termination and thus several fundamental L-modes. He modified it to be more of a clamped termination to narrow the L-mode frequency range.
    This is evidence L-mode can pass over pivot terminations.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 88.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 08-07-2014 09:02
    David L< considering both the frequency and the amount of other noise that occurs simultaneously during what must by the L wave's short life expectancy. 

    Excellent conversation...the challenges to Ed's hypothesis, explanations and continuing prudent challenges are helping my tiny waveform-non-comprehending-brain to get at least a small glimmer at least of the nature of the discussion.

    David's quote above is one of the points that continues to stand out in my mind. That is, while prudently being reluctant to ascribe certain parts of the audible duplex sound to Ed's hypothesized high treble L modes, in expressing that reasonable prudence, almost every voice I've ever heard speak on this subject is comfortable referring to this mystery sound as "noise", or very clearly in the quote above "other noise". 

    What is "other noise"? 

    All audible sound is carried on some waveform or complex combination of waveforms. For the sake of argument, eliminate T and L modes as the possible culprits of this "other noise".  What vibrating motion remain which can describe what the wave energy is that produces this complex "other" audible sound?  Also, if the sounds are actually noise, ie, it they are chaotically vibrating entities, how do they have the capacity to organize themselves to such a degree that they increase by an order of magnitude when a harmonic ratio of speaking length to duplex length is achieved.  One thing that comes to mind is simply the sound of the string excursion striking the some portion of the v bar slightly removed from the termination. But this "other noise" can be a significant source of audible sound that lasts longer than the instant of attack. What wave form can carry its audible presence, if we eliminate T and L modes from the running?   

    Jim Ialeggio





    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Ialeggio
    grandpianosolutions.com
    Shirley, MA
    978 425-9026
    -------------------------------------------




  • 89.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-07-2014 10:55
    Jim:

    By other noise I mean mostly the sympathetic elements of the speaking and non speaking lengths throughout the piano but there is plenty of other noise associated with piano tone, the percussive thump of the attack, mechanical noise, etc., that occur during (and even slightly before) the string driven vibrational energy of the soundboard.  

    Ed:

    Even if the longitudinal waves cross over the boundary of the capo, in the treble section they will be very short lived in contrast to the transverse waves.  How do you know that the whistles and other frequency driven noises that you hear whose duration is likely far longer than the life expectancy of the L waves are not a function of combinations of transverse waves whose life expectancy is much greater. 

    I assume by L modes and T modes we are talking about longitudinal versus transverse or standing waves. 
    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 90.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-07-2014 16:16
    Ed,
    What leads you to believe that the motion conveyed by Lord Rayleigh's rod was "longitudinal" and had anything to do with "longitudinal modes?" That is to say, the sound spectrum of the the piano soundboard was conducted by vibration of the rod to the violin soundboard. It was conducted "along the length of" the rod. That does not equate to longitudinal mode vibration of a metal body. I have the impression you think the two are the same thing. 

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 91.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-07-2014 20:38
    Rayleighs demonstration takes the up and down motion of the piano soundboard through the steel rod to produce up and down motion in the violin soundboard. The pulse must travel lengthwise through the rod to accomplish that. That is longitudinal motion inside the steel rod exactly like in piano strings except the origin is not from a localized increase in tension. 

    Also, Conklin's work on Phantom partials talks about the non-linear response of the soundboard/bridge to longitudinal motion. The final sentence of his article is, "The effect of phantom partials on the perceived tone quality of mechano-acoustic, (edit, god I hate that term, I had to swallow hard to write it), pianos is believed to be significant."

    I would love to read the new material. If you get access let me know please.
    Ed

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 92.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-07-2014 23:06
    Ed,
    There is a big difference between sound being conducted in a material (any material, could be water, earth, air, but in this example it is steel), and a longitudinal mode of a metal body. In conducting sound, the waves are generated by something other than the material, and they simply "pass through" the material in wave form, the metal rod in the example. That metal rod could have one or more longitudinal modes of vibration (I believe it needs to be under tension to meet the definition), but that would not consist a complex system of sounds from another source. It would be the metal rod vibrating itself, and would have a distinct pitch for each mode (if more than one is present). That pitch is predictable and calculable (those pitches in the case of multiple modes - but they are individual, discrete pitches).

    Longitudinal conduction, or longitudinal motion, should not be confused with longitudinal mode of vibration. They are different concepts, different phenomena. If you don't believe me, find a physicist you trust and ask. I am quite certain that you have badly confused the meaning, and this has led you down all sorts of mistaken pathways.

    Perhaps an analogy would help. A soundboard reproduces an enormous variety of sounds. However, it also has certain resonance characteristics, pitches it will produce if struck directly. In the former case, the soundboard is being driven by complex patterns of vibration, none of which is its own resonance tone (if the soundboard has been well designed), and it reproduces them. In the latter, the soundboard "creates the sound" itself, and has a specific pitch or set of pitches. It isn't a precise analogy, but it has many similarities.

    I gave you the url (as a link) of the "Acoustics of the Piano" paper by Chaigne in my last post. Here it is simply as text, but also as a link:
    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/87/36/39/PDF/Piano-Chaigne-SMAC13.pdf
    That paper is somewhat interesting, but Chaigne is mostly after mathematical modeling. He has apparently come up with a model that produces the effects of longitudinal modes (precursor tones, "phantom" partials). The formulae are beyond my understanding, but he is a very solid, long time student of the piano, colleague of Ashkenfelt. I think it is mostly aimed at electronic synthesis of sound. (That's where the money is).

    BTW, Stephen Birkett's paper on hammer/string interaction has been published in JASA, end of last year. "Experimental investigation of the piano hammer-string interaction." I haven't had time to grapple with it yet, just a quick skim. Should anyone without access to JASA want to read it, email me privately. I have a pdf. I'll mention that I am heading off for a long weekend, so probably will be out of touch until Tuesday.

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 93.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-08-2014 01:17
    Fred,
    So you think the waves carried by the Rayleigh's rod between soundboards are transverse? All sound waves in the air are longitudinal. The soundboard converts and couples string T-modes to air L-modes. Rayleigh simply used the modulus of elasticity of steel to conduct the L-modes through a couple of floors of his house to the violin. So the steel piano string uses the same modulus to move L-modes across T-mode terminations. The physics are quite well known.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 94.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-06-2014 23:33
    Fred,
    I think I have digested very well some of the implications from all the L-mode research regarding how highly sensitive boundary conditions affect L-mode. There are likely yet some unknown factors to researchers. Read N. Giordano and A. J. Korty from JASA April 1996. article titled; "Motion of a piano string: Longitudinal vibrations and the role of the bridge".

    The shimmering noises some duplex notes have sound much like the pulsing of beats, they do not sound like normal T-modes.All past research shows that the ways L-mode and T-mode can interact are very complex. It is very conceivable that high frequency L-mode can interact with much lower frequency T-modes in a pulsing manner where the L-mode is coupled only at fraction of its period. Just because Ellis's work with long strings producing many T-mode partials showed that L-mode coupled to pairs of high partials; does not eliminate the possibility that L-modes can periodically interact with the 1st , 2nd or 3rd partial of the T-modes if boundary conditions allow. It is also very possible that the L-mode frequency difference among the duplex segment itself is the source of the shimmer or beats in problematic duplex notes.  Have you ever heard a "Phoenix" agraffe bridge? All the notes with the bridge agraffes produce a pulsing shimmer that is in sync with the T-modes. That could well be L-mode energy starting and stopping in sync with the T-modes. Have you ever switched out a harder phosphor bronze agraffe on a Steinway to a soft brass one? Or done the same with a Bosendorfers that have the steel insert agraffes? How do you explain these tonal difference with T-modes alone? Especially when you learn how sensitive L-modes are to the boundaries? 

    It is very hard to produce much in the way of higher partials in the very short high treble strings. Yet you can hear a tonal change with hard terminations verses soft. Again, How do you account for that when one knows how sensitive L-mode energy is to the boundary conditions and higher T-mode partials are almost impossible to excite in very short strings? As you strike the string closer to the plate termination the energy put into the L-mode is greater in proportion to the T-modes than if you strike deeper. This is because the momentary localized stretching that gives rise to L-mode is greater when the angle of string deflection is greater. An optimized pivot termination in the treble may help produce a higher proportion of L-mode to T-mode energy than in long strings because it can be deflected to a higher angle. Bridges near to a right angle with the strings also can rock easier and reinforce L-mode and/or pulse the high L-mode frequency back into the string. This can all happen before the full T-mode is established on the string and it can continue to do this after T-mode is fully established. All this rocking can disrupt the bridge from clean vertical T-mode motion and can cause periodic coupling between mode energy. These are all pulsing sounds. I know I haven't "proven" all of these but they are all easily possible.

    Our ears tell us something is going on with duplex scales that pulses, shimmers, hisses, whatever word you like. Careful placement of the metal duplex rests to eliminate T-mode consonance still results in duplex noises. My FTDS graduates the duplex ratios across the compass so as to maximize pivot in the high treble and uses duplex rests that are a little harder than rock maple, (we know rock maple damps L-modes and leaves the T-modes mostly undamped, my FTDS duplex rests do much the same without moving with humidity and /or rusting to the string), So the fact that one can hear a difference with a FTDS over a traditional duplex means that energy is being distributed differently. The difference can not be just T-mode behavior because the T-modes are all still there. The only plausible change is in the L-mode energy. Obviously I don't know all the pathways and I have tried to explain some of the possibilities, and that is all the patent office requires. I am sorry if that disappoints anyone. I am just trying to solve a problem, it is not pure research.
    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 95.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-07-2014 17:45
    Ed,
    I have read Giordano and Korty's article (I have a pdf should anyone else wish to read it - one of the perks of university work is access to a lot of library related things). I will summarize what that article conveys in broad terms.

    The experimental setup was in the form of multiple readings: "strain gauges" set up so as to be able to measure the bridge movement in two planes, together with a string movement sensor and a mike (simplifying a bit). The experiment centered on one unison, E3 (= about 160 hz) of a Charles Fredrick Stein upright. It was noted that a high frequency vibration occurred in the bridge prior to the arrival of the string wave (deformation of the string moving from impact toward the bridge). That vibration was determined to be longitudinal mode - in part because its frequency closely matched that of the calculated longitudinal mode (2800 vs 2700 hz). This is known as a "precursor" vibration, and longitudinal mode is considered a major component of this element of "prompt" or "attack" sound. BTW, examination of the causes of precursor sound was the major aim of the experiment and focus of the paper.

    They tried to tease out the cause/means of generation of longitudinal mode, giving two hypothetical causes: (1) the hammer strikes the string somewhat "non-squarely" causing a lateral deviation of some kind. (2) it is the result of transverse mode vibration. They concluded it was the result of transverse vibration, with the elongation and compression of small portions of the wire being transferred into the entirety of the wire (I have oversimplified their description). 

    That is the degree of "interaction" of longitudinal and transverse modes that is discussed in that paper. Nothing that would lead me to all the speculations I am seeing in your writing, Ed.


    Longitudinal mode seems to be a hot topic of research at the moment. A paper entitled "The origins of longitudinal waves in piano strings" by Brandon August, Nikki Etchenique and Thomas R. Moore was given at the 2012 Acoustical Society conference, with the following abstract:

    The importance of longitudinal waves in piano strings has been previously identified by several investigators. Recent experimental work has provided insight into the origin of these waves and their relationship to the transverse string motion. These measurements indicate that there are multiple regimes in which longitudinal waves are created through different processes.

    I haven't been able to come up with a copy - I guess it probably was not published. I thought the same was true with the following article (including discussion of longitudinal wave components):

    The acoustics of pianos.
    Antoine J Chaigne

    ABSTRACT The manufacturing of pianos remains largely empirical, with numerous trial-and-error procedures and fine adjustments at each step of the building process. The "skeleton" of the instrument obeys fundamental principles of vibrations, acoustics, and material science. An abundance of literature is available on its different constitutive parts. However, scientific studies based on a global model of the instrument that connects all of these constitutive parts together are more recent. Such modeling sheds useful light on the essential coupling properties between elements and, in particular, on the string-soundboard coupling at the bridge, and on the radiation of the soundboard. Fine analysis of piano tones also shows that in most cases, a nonlinear model of the strings is necessary to account for perceptually significant features such as precursors in the time-domain and the so-called "phantom partials" in the spectrum. This nonlinearity is based on the coupling between transverse and longitudinal waves in the string. In this lecture, a time-domain model of a complete piano is presented that couples together nonlinear strings, soundboard vibrations, and radiation in air. It highlights the transmission of both transverse and longitudinal string forces to the soundboard, and the influence of rib design and bridge on soundboard mobility and radiation patterns. Comparisons between the results of the model and measurements made on real pianos will be discussed.

    Turns out it was published and posted. (Stockholm Musical Acoustics Conference). I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 96.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 08-04-2014 08:29
    Fred,

    If there is anything we do that carries the imprimatur of certainty, I would like to hear it. Its all working hypotheses. The hypotheses, because we are not doing basic science, is based on an individual's observations. The observations are unavoidably "informed" by personal bias and crude attempts at some version of statistical analysis. Even those who pursue the academic research end of this work have very little to show in terms of certainty...all of it can be argued into oblivion. 

    I submit, that if, in this work, one can only proceed and promote their ideas only after having achieved the certainty of proof, whatever proof is, that one and all will be left holding their collective Johnson's, mired in inaction.

    The only thing we have to go on are results. And, of all the various results, the one that gain credibility, will gain that credibility on the strength of how well those results are promoted.

    Jim Ialeggio 
     


     

    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Ialeggio
    grandpianosolutions.com
    Shirley, MA
    978 425-9026
    -------------------------------------------















  • 97.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 08-04-2014 21:58
    Ed, Two major points.

    As Fred pointed out, longitudinal frequencies in the top half of the
    scale are way too high to be an audible component of tone.

    Also, no one, ever, has measured and reported longitudinal modes passing
    across bearing points - ever. Until you can produce documentation to
    that effect, you have no case at all.

    That's it. I'm back to ignoring this.
    Ron N




  • 98.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-05-2014 00:35
    Ron,
    The response to Fred's post covers my response to yours. 

    I will add that I have heard pianos that were modified to change the duplex from variable ratio to what I call a mono-tone duplex. The treble tone of those pianos all sounded like an upright piano. It no longer had the body and warmth that a reasonably done traditional duplex has. I agree with you that reasonably done duplex scales still have problems-I just found a new way to solve them. 

    I have also installed FTDS into pianos that had original mono-tone duplex and the increase in tone quality is noticed.


    I think you will have to admit my solution is new, even though you disagree with it.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 99.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-08-2014 11:03
    I will add some more information on longitudinal motion. Rayleigh's rod most certainly carries the motion of the piano soundboard via L-motion in the rod. This motion is the same motion that carries the "defined" L-modes of piano strings. It is also carried by the same mechanism, the elastic nature of the rod and the extremely low internal damping of the material.

    Further, like Rayleigh's rod, the taught piano strings can carry via L-motion nearly every L vector the boundary conditions produce. This includes relatively low frequency horizontal motion of the capo and the bridge. How do you think some of the hammer knock noise gets into the soundboard? That is why I describe the desired capo construction details of my FTDS patent application. The natural L-mode frequency of the string as defined by the terminations is not the only L-motion that the string medium can carry. And the localized increase of tension the hammer strike makes is not the only L-motion excitation source in piano strings. This opens the door to non-linearity in frequency response. 

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 100.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-08-2014 12:29
    I don't see any reason why a longitudinal wave won't pass across a barrier, though it depends on the width of the barrier.  If you bend a metal rod around a metal post and tap on one end of the metal rod the sound can be heard on the other end of the rod.  But whether or not the longitudinal waves that cross the capo are, themselves, the whistles and noises that you hear in the duplex seems like a very different question.  The energy that drives the duplex may be a very different thing than the sound that the duplex produces for other reasons much like the buzzing of a loose rib (which has an associated sympathetic frequency btw) which is driven by the energy that moves the soundboard assembly but is not to be confused with the frequency associated with the energy that is actually driving the board.    
    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 101.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 08-08-2014 18:11
    On 8/6/2014 11:30 PM, Edward McMorrow via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
    > I will also add to my Lord Rayleigh comment that Ellis had great
    > problems resolving L-mode frequency on his first generation
    > mono-chord testing bed.

    The first thing you need to do is learn the difference between coupled
    reciprocal motion and longitudinal waves. They aren't even close to
    being the same thing. The Rayleigh demonstration says nothing of use here.

    > He used a channel iron with a pressure bar
    > between the legs which created some pivot termination and thus
    > several fundamental L-modes. He modified it to be more of a clamped
    > termination to narrow the L-mode frequency range. This is evidence
    > L-mode can pass over pivot terminations.

    It's evidence of no such thing. It demonstrates that a clamped
    termination is more solid and less lossy than a pivot termination. As
    long as no longitudinal waves were measured outside the speaking length,
    the wave did not pass the termination, however much you want to believe it.
    Ron N




  • 102.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-08-2014 23:08
    Coupled reciprocal motion carried by longitudinal compression at the modulus of elasticity is exactly what L-modes are. The only difference between Rayleigh's rod and a piano string is the excitation mechanism and the boundaries. The compression and rarefaction of the elastic nature of the rod is a longitudinal vector. So are the localized tension pulses from a hammer striking a piano string and the end pulses provided by longitudinal boundary movement. It is the modulus of elasticity that is the dominant factor.

    Any fully reciprocal coupling motion of Rayleigh's rod would have been lost by friction, inertia, center of gravity and other issues converting the vertical motion into transverse rod motions leaving the violin silent. If Rayleigh had used a wood rod two stories long, the low modulus of elasticity would have damped all the energy internally.

    It is the stiffness of the wire that drives these things. This is expressed with the modulus of elasticity. Think about how little internal molecular motion is required to move energy longitudinally in piano wire and you will see how little an impediment a V-bar is to longitudinal pulses. 


    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 103.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-08-2014 23:45
    Now to get back to OT. 

    Today I was shaping the V-bar of 1929 STY M that I am rebuilding. The plate is out and upside down on a cart for V-bar shaping and pin-block fitting.The V-bar was only making noises just above the agraffe section. The string heights of the lowest capo notes was 2mm lower than the top agraffe section. The V-bar was not level across the scale and the string contact point was widest at the bottom of the lowest capo section. Many of the string marks measured from 0.75mm to 1.0mm. The bottom of the lowest capo marks were 1.5mm wide and quite faint, meaning very little indenting of the surface. The radius was overall quite small. 

    So I removed enough material with a bastard file, (modified with the tip broken off), to raise the level of the V-bar at the bottom of the lowest capo section by about 1.5mm and leveled the whole bar. It also showed about 0.75mm drop in V-bar level under the strut between capo sections. I then brushed on graphite/alcohol solution to the V-bar to use as a cutting guide. I then use a air powered die cutter and roughed in a V-profile to the bar that I finished by hand draw filing with first a coarse and then fine bastard file. There was no hard metal on any of the V-bar. It cut freely and quietly. I left the V-bar with about 0.5mm wide edge for string contact. When strung and pitched the string contact point will be about 1.0mm wide. 

    This is probably about the three hundredth piano I have prepared the V-bar like this in my career. The whole V-bar process took 1 hour. The pin-block will take more time.

    But nowadays, with CNC machines, there is no excuse for any piano manufacturer to not turn out plates with perfect V-bars that technicians never need to do anything to. We as professionals should inform the piano public to only purchase pianos that have soft, true V-shaped V-bars! No radius, no case hardening, no round mild steel rod, only soft cast iron or soft brass agraffes for string terminations on the plate!

    If its a revolution-I am all in!

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 104.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 08-08-2014 23:30
    On 8/8/2014 10:08 PM, Edward McMorrow via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
    > Coupled reciprocal motion carried by longitudinal compression at the
    > modulus of elasticity is exactly what L-modes are. The only
    > difference between Rayleigh's rod and a piano string is the
    > excitation mechanism and the boundaries.

    Rayleigh's stick was a pushrod, plain and simple, moving in it's
    entirety, ends and all. With no resemblence to longitudinal waves in
    piano strings. And no one still has yet measured longitudinal waves in
    strings outside the speaking length. The whole thing is assumption.
    Ron N




  • 105.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 08-09-2014 09:28
    Ron N< Rayleigh's stick was a pushrod

    If it were a pushrod, given up and down motion, which is what I assume a pushrod would be doing, the velocity of the down component, unless the two soundboards were connected in a spring relationship, would require the rod to descend way faster than the acceleration due to gravity...no?

    What was the experimental setup? was the connection simply the weight of the violin soundboard resting on the steel rod?

    Jim Ialeggio  

    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Ialeggio
    grandpianosolutions.com
    Shirley, MA
    978 425-9026
    -------------------------------------------

    -

    , plain and simple, moving in it's
    entirety, ends and all. With no resemblence to longitudinal waves in
    piano strings. And no one still has yet measured longitudinal waves in
    strings outside the speaking length. The whole thing is assumption.
    Ron N








  • 106.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-09-2014 23:23
    I don't have a copy of Rayleighs book titled "Theory of Sound". I read through some of it when I was in college and used the libraries copy. But I found a reference to Rayleighs "rod", (this may only be my name for the experiment). in my copy of The Piano-Its Acoustics by W. V. McFerrin. It is one if the points he uses to describe longitudinal waves. on pages 9 & 10. 

    "Lord Rayleigh relates in his Theory of Sound that Wheatstone touched one end of a metallic wire to the soundboard of a piano, ran the wire through partitions and floors into another part of a building where the piano would not be audible. The second end of the wire was then placed against the body of the violin. When the piano was played the sound of it could be heard coming from the violin as a sounding board. this experiment is an example of a longitudinal sound wave passing through the length of wire. The molecules in the end on the piano bumped the adjacent ones, and they the ones next to them,, and so on through the length of the wire somewhat like the air molecules represented in Fig. 1-2."

    From page 24 of Ellis; Longitudinal Modes in Piano Strings. "Merely touching the pressure bar with the end of a screwdriver would change the measured frequency of L1." This was his early monochord with the U channel steel pivot string termination clamped with a pressure bar between the legs much like the plate termination of an upright piano.

    The pressure bar was not in the speaking length, so if placing a screwdriver on it would change the frequency of the L-mode measurement that was being taken in the speaking length-that is MEASURED PROOF that L-mode passes over pivot termination in taut piano strings. He did not say he was touching the termination point for the T-modes. 

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 107.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 08-09-2014 23:34
    On 8/9/2014 10:23 PM, Edward McMorrow via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
    > From page 24 of Ellis; Longitudinal Modes in Piano Strings. "Merely
    > touching the pressure bar with the end of a screwdriver would change
    > the measured frequency of L1." This was his early monochord with the
    > U channel steel pivot string termination clamped with a pressure bar
    > between the legs much like the plate termination of an upright
    > piano.
    >
    > The pressure bar was not in the speaking length, so if placing a
    > screwdriver on it would change the frequency of the L-mode
    > measurement that was being taken in the speaking length-that is
    > MEASURED PROOF that L-mode passes over pivot termination in taut
    > piano strings. He did not say he was touching the termination point
    > for the T-modes.

    It's evidence that the mass, therefor impedance of the termination was
    raised by the addition of the screwdriver. No measurement was taken
    outside the speaking length.

    I've had enough of this irrational nonsense. I'm done.
    Ron N




  • 108.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-09-2014 23:56
    Ron, Thanks for the reply. If it was impedance, why did Ellis abandon the pivot termination? He went to a clamped termination and reported increased resolution of L-mode frequency.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 109.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-10-2014 00:26
    And further Ron, if changing the impedance of a termination will change pitch, then adding weight to a bridge should change the pitch of the T-modes in a piano. Last time I checked it doesn't. The mass of Ellis's screwdriver was on the pressure bar, not the pivot termination. I am sure the screwdriver changed the springy behavior of the pressure bar-but that changed the L-mode frequency in the speaking length-it can only do that if the period of the L-mode energy is being defined by the pressure bar. That is PROOF the L-mode passes over a pivot termination.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 110.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-11-2014 07:34

    OMG....bicker, bicker, bicker
    Is anyone else fed up with this thread?
    Make a phone call to each other, for goodness sake!

    -------------------------------------------
    BD,RPT....FWA

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




  • 111.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 08-11-2014 13:37
    Not necessarily "fed up", Brian.

    Just way above my pay grade to make use of what's being said recently. I have gleaned some of the information offered.

    However, I don't have a problem with folks working out their perceived understandings with one another here on my.ptg.org. Could make a difference down the road for the piano industry, and those of use who have to deal with the products.

    Keith McGavern, RPT
    Shawnee, Oklahoma, USA
    kam544@allegiance.tv
    [Visual Tuning Platform User]
    [iRCT & OnlyPure ]



  • 112.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-12-2014 16:15
    I'd have to agree the thread has turned into a very annoying and unproductive bickering match. I kind of hoped that my explanation of longitudinal modes a few days ago might be helpful, but apparently Ed McMorrow has it in his brain that there is a connection between longitudinal mode and longitudinal wave, and can't get it out. Others seem to be similarly challenged by the various concepts: longitudinal mode, transverse mode, longitudinal wave, transverse wave. And that complete lack of understanding of the terminology means there can be no useful communication.

    A wave occurs in a medium, like air or water (air being the most common for sound). A mode is the manner in which a vibrating string (for our purposes) generates the impulses that the soundboard transfers to the air, where they become waves. It can and does vibrate both transversely and longitudinally (in those respective "modes"). The transverse vibrations produce most of the tone we hear. The longitudinal vibrations are transient (don't last long) and mostly affect only the attack component of the tone. The sum of what is happening in the string is transferred via bridge pin to the soundboard. Longitudinal and transverse modes may each produce both longitudinal and transverse waves, but all sound waves are longitudinal waves in the medium of air. 

    For anyone interested, it is fairly easy to get a basic education in these concepts by using wiki and other internet sources, though you need to keep in mind that much of the info about waves that is available on the internet is aimed at electricity or light and lasers, as opposed to sound.

    Longitudinal and transverse waves are explained here (demonstrating the differences via nice animations).
    Longitudinal and transverse modes are well explained by Harold Conklin here. 

    This post is not intended to prolong the thread, merely to try to wash out some of the bad taste and provide some accurate information.

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 113.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-12-2014 22:56
    I have no confusion regarding modes and waves. All modes of periodic energy in a medium are waves. The natural frequency of a mode is defined by the restoring forces and the boundaries. Air is the only medium for sound. Sound is modal motion in gas particles. A mode in a medium carries the wave information/energy and can transmit it to another system if they are sufficiently coupled. It is nice of Fred to provide informative links. I can report I have given them much study.

    A medium can be forced to carry a mode not natural to it by non-linear behavior of the boundaries. This is somewhat like harmonic distortion. Am I the only one who recognizes that the capo bar is vibrated by T-modes and L-modes? Am I the only one who realizes that the first modal energy coupled to the bridge by a struck piano string is L-mode. I probably am the only one who understood that inaudible L-modes can drive the bridge and capo bar in modes that couple to T-mode partials of much lower frequency and thus manifest their presence in an audible way. I probably am the only one who recognizes that each string of a duplex scale/pivot termination can carry two different fundamental L-modes. If one cannot see by the evidence of Ellis's pivot termination monochord problems that L-mode passes over a pivot termination you are not grasping the implications of the modulus of elasticity of the wire. Am I the only one who recognizes that? The physics are simple. 

    Some here seem to have become insulted by me because I posed questions. I am sorry for that. I have to remind myself that what is obvious to me is not always obvious to others. So that is why I asked the questions.


    If anyone want to understand my Fully Tempered Duplex Scale, I would be happy to explain and cite more sources if you explain to me what you don't understand. But just like you Fred-I would like to be treated with respect. Implying that I am some uneducated rube doesn't cut it. My Fully Tempered Duplex Scale does sound different, that has been reported by experts in the field not connected to me. It thus "proves" that something different is going on. A proof by construction of a model is a time honored way to do science if you use Occam's razor and previously proven facts to frame the experiment. If my explanations required new physics-then I would be suspected of fraud.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 114.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 08-13-2014 00:19
    All,

    I'm not declaring that Ed M. is the end all to this thread.

    But I must say,that after 300 pianos modified by him, there must be some credibility to his comments, whether the rest of us understand what he is saying, or whether the nomenclature he is using is exactly precise to our wishes.

    Hats off to you, Ed, from the peanut gallery.

    Keith McGavern, RPT
    Shawnee, Oklahoma, USA
    kam544@allegiance.tv
    [Visual Tuning Platform User]
    [iRCT & OnlyPure ]



  • 115.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-13-2014 11:15
    "I probably am the only one who understood..."

    "I probably am the only one who recognizes..."

    "I have to remind myself that what is obvious to me is not always obvious to others."

    You're probably more humble than the rest of us, too. ;)

    -------------------------------------------
    Adam Schulte-Bukowinski
    http://www.asbpianoservice.com
    Omaha, NE
    -------------------------------------------




  • 116.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-13-2014 14:03
    I feel like I should clarify my previous comment, which was purely meant to be an attempt at levity, and not to slight or impugn Ed's character or his work.  I will readily admit that much of this thread goes over my head, but I do very much appreciate those who are engaging in the work of understanding and improving the design of the piano.

    -------------------------------------------
    Adam Schulte-Bukowinski
    http://www.asbpianoservice.com
    Omaha, NE
    -------------------------------------------




  • 117.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-13-2014 18:33
    Ed McMorrow: "I have no confusion regarding modes and waves"

    Ed,
    Glad to hear it. I can't say that for myself. I think it is a very confusing field of study, myself. Perhaps you understand, but you seem to lack the discipline of communication, where words need to mean one thing most of the time, and not go scattering around taking on every possible meaning. What led me to say you were "confused" was your use of the Rayleigh experiment to show, I guess, something concerning what you seem to be calling longitudinal mode of vibration in strings. 

    Yes, Rayleigh's rod did involve vibrations traveling along a
     rod, hence "longitudinally," and vibrations travel "in wave form." But does that have anything to do with piano strings being struck, and producing what Conklin, Ellis, Giordano, Korty, etc. call "longitudinal mode" vibrations of the string, differentiating them from "transverse mode" vibrations of the string? Not as far as I can tell.

    Yes, we can confuse the matter more by noting that the transverse mode vibrations are created by longitudinal waves in the string: a deformation is created by the hammer, it travels in wave form toward both ends of the string ("longitudinally"), and that eventually resolves into standing, transverse waves, which move the bridge pin through a "longitudinal" action. 

    Since the words I read from your posts are given multiple and constantly changing meanings, I find it impossible to follow you. You could be a genius, you could be an idiot, hard to tell the difference sometimes. A true, or at any rate useful, genius, like Einstein or Hawkins, is capable of communicating in a straightforward manner, goes to the trouble to be understandable. Genius that doesn't communicate well might as well not exist as far as the rest of the world is concerned. I have begun to lose interest in making the effort to decide whether you actually have anything useful to say, other than to assert that you have figured everything out, which isn't useful unless you can explain it clearly.

    "My Fully Tempered Duplex Scale does sound different, that has been reported by experts in the field not connected to me"
    Are you referring to Ed Sutton's comment in the intro to your article? Is that the authority on which you hang your proof? Or do you have additional "proofs" to offer, to support your credibility? Does "different" mean improved? Ideal? What does it mean in this context? I suspect that whoever the experts are to whom you are referring, they said that the particular piano "sounded different," as opposed to saying that your FTDS sounds different, no? Meanings of words and phrases matter.

    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 118.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-13-2014 22:19
    Thanks for this reply Fred. It is well written as is most of your printed material. Some people think I do very well at describing some things Fred so I do have my successful communication moments. 

    Rayleigh's rod carried the soundboard coupled T-mode motion of the piano string via longitudinal compression of the rod. Thus the mode of the waves in the rod was longitudinal. It doesn't have anything to do with the natural L-mode frequency of the rod. I have cited Ellis's experiments that show natural frequency L-modes can pass over pivot termination. There are other sources of this fact but I can't cite them without rereading a whole bunch of material.

    The primary creation of T-modes are not due to longitudinal displacement of the elastic string wave medium. They are due to "lateral" displacement which creates a restoring force that momentum continues periodically over time. The lateral string deformation travels at the particular speed that the elasticity of the medium produces. It is reflected by the boundaries and then become a periodic wave with a defined frequency. T-modes can move the bridge both vertically and horizontally depending on the springy/mass behavior of the soundboard/bridge to all the angular momentums and their periods that are created.

    Longitudinal excitation of an elastic wave medium is a compression wave carried by the internal elasticity of the wave medium. The hammer creates L-mode by the localized tension at the strike point. L-mode is also created by interactions at the boundaries. Almost all the research done so far has not dealt with this fact. 

    As to whether my Fully Tempered Duplex Scale really produces a different sound. There are people who have heard before and after examples. Of course you can question the lack of a control that formal research requires. I invite all who are curious to visit my shop and experience a FTDS piano. Because I have real world examples of what I am describing-at some level I don't need to "talk" about my work-I just need people to experience it.

    Fred, do you really think it is professional to just boldly dismiss my work? I am very proud of my track record in solving piano problems-is that just arrogance-or is that an honest defense of my accomplishments? I have learned if I don't talk about my work enough, many of my peers ignore me. I ain't gonna take that anymore.
     



    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 119.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-13-2014 00:15
    Fairly confusing explanation.  And there is a "connection" between a longitudinal mode and wave.  The problem is that different people use these terms differently, apparently.  Conklin's description of the longitudinal "mode" is a value.  To paraphrase what he writes, the longitudinal mode cannot be tuned because it is a function of the physical properties of the string.  Thus the mode is not the "manner" in which the energy is transferred, it is the frequency at which it occurs.  Contrary to what you have written below "Longitudinal and transverse modes may each produce both longitudinal and transverse waves" others would not say that.  They would say that longitudinal and transverse modes don't produce waves, they are a physical characteristic of those longitudinal and transverse waves. 

    So far I haven't seen any explanation that isn't challenged.  So many physicists, so many armchairs. 

    I do agree on one point, this whole conversation is no longer very productive. 

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 120.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-13-2014 00:24
    I think Conklin uses "mode" to describe periodic energy that is traveling in a specific vector in a specific wave medium. I think all acoustics texts I have read use it the same way. I use it that way. 

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 121.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-13-2014 00:32
    Thanks Keith,
    The 300 pianos are for V-bar profile. I have only done 15 Fully Tempered Duplex Scales so far. 

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 122.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Posted 08-13-2014 07:28
    David L -Fairly confusing explanation.  And there is a "connection" between a longitudinal mode and wave. 

    Actually far from bickering and pointless confusion, I'm finding the challenges and counter challenges, followed up by reading links and trying for the 3rd time to re-read Ellis, helpful in trying to come to terms with a phenomenon that is far from discrete, compartmentalized and simple as Fred's explanation would suggest.

    The fact is, the behavior of waves, though somewhat predictable and consistent in their behavior is utterly bizarre. Bizarre  to minds that were designed to contemplate chasing wildbeasts on the Serengeti rather than making sense of what amounts to quantum behavior...totally weird and fascinating stuff.  

    I had this discussion with the chair of the Physics department at Brown once at a social gig. I explained how bizarre and confusing the whole thing seemed to me. He answered, that that's because its bizarre and weird.

    Jim Ialeggio
    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Ialeggio
    grandpianosolutions.com
    Shirley, MA
    978 425-9026
    -------------------------------------------


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



















  • 123.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-13-2014 10:31
    The non-linearities do some strange things when they couple with "normal" wave energy. I haven't found the need to employ quantum explanations. (If you want to read some strange science look up the rocket motor NASA recently tested. It uses no fuel to produce thrust). 

    Acoustics is based on how we perceive sound, so in a sense there is a parallel with the quantum realm in that the conditions of the observer do influence what we notice and how we characterize it. I have found it very useful to think of the entire compass of the piano keyboard as comprising three distinct instruments, The middle portion that aligns with the human vocal range, the low bass that can be described more with bell or bell/wind combination sounds, and the top 30 or so notes that I call the bird song treble. This is all from my unpublished book titled Grand DeLight that contains my theory of musically intelligible sound.

    My Fully Tempered Duplex Scale is an attempt to solve the problem of "strange" pulsing sounds that sometimes occur in some portions of a traditional duplex scale that can not be explained by T-mode influence alone. Research has shown that L-mode energy in the treble strings is considerable. I formed a hypotheses about sources and modified the structure of a duplex to control some of the factors that I identified. A Fully Tempered Duplex Scale sounds different, many technicians agree with that who have experienced it. It also appears to be a novel arrangement to many as well. I hope my fellow peers can respect that.

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------




  • 124.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-13-2014 12:04
    Here's a typical question from a physics forum.  The "mode" is used in much the same way we would use harmonics or partials.  The mode described is a characteristic of the standing wave.

    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    Sound Wavelength From String
    During a concert a pianist hits a key that sets up a standing wave in a piano string that is vibrating in its fundamental mode. The string is 0.5 m long, has a mass density of 0.002 kg/m and is held under a tension of 120 N. What is the wavelength of the sound wave heard by the listener? The speed of sound in air is 343 m/s.
    v (sound) = 343 m/s
    L (length) = 0.5 m
    d (mass density) = 0.002 kg/m
    T (tension) = 120 N
    λ (wavelength) = unknown

    Read more: http://www.physicsforums.com 

    Part of the confusion, it seems to me, is that the longitudinal wave that Fred has described is a compression wave, as occurs in air.  The longitudinal impulse in a piano string is not a compression wave.  It can better be described as a longitudinal, traveling wave generated by the hammer striking the string and it travels along the string (in both directions). When it hits the wall of the bridge or capo it flips around and is reflected back.  The degree to which it is reflected depends on the impedance ratio of the termination points.  At the bridge side some  amount of energy is transferred to the soundboard.  The soundboard also begins to move initially in the same manner as a traveling wave along the string.  Transverse waves which arise in the string also arise in the soundboard both with their characteristics modes.  In the soundboard that movement is much more complex, obviously.  There are many videos available showing how the board starts to move and then divides into various modes.

    So, in the wake of this traveling wave, as it were, the standing or transverse waves form.  The longitudinal impulse dissipates fairly quickly, though less quickly in the bass strings, and the transverse waves take over, as it were.  The modal properties of the string (and soundboard) are descriptive and from the movement of the soundboard pressure waves are formed in the air which are longitudinal in nature.  The longitudinal traveling wave has a frequency based on the strings material properties and that becomes audible through the soundboard string coupling.  That is what Conklin is referring to and the mode he discusses is the frequency associated with that traveling wave impulse combining with the standing or transverse waves to create some unwanted pitch problems.  You can listen to his samples to hear this.

    So the question is what happens at the capo.  The longitudinal or traveling wave is restricted (except that the capo pivots).  So is the energy transfer a total function of the pivoting or is it like a steel rod that you tap on, at that point, and the energy travels in a truly longitudinal manner.  Or is it both.  I don't know the answer but energy does transfer across the capo, clearly.  Whether or not the frequency associated with the longitudinal traveling impulse has enough life expectancy or energy to create an audible and confusing pitch seems to be the question in the discussion.  To me, it doesn't seem likely.  The bigger question is does it matter.  Are the unwanted noises we are trying to get rid of caused by the longitudinal mode in the treble?  Seems unlikely.  Is it caused by some imprecise termination between the string and capo?  Certainly this does happen, a buzzing agraffe is a good example.  Does it happen because the duplex scale vibrates sympathetically because it's tuned?  Does it rob the speaking length of energy because it's too long and therefore too much energy is lost, i.e., not transferred back to the speaking length?  

    From a practical standpoint it seems that all of these things (and there may be others) probably combine in some way to produce a variety of issues that may seem like a single issue but, in fact, are not.  The rest of this seems like an argument between people who think they know more than they do.  To quote Bob Dylan, "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows".    

    To best clean up the capo area I find, through my own experience, that the following basic rules apply on capos that can be shaped:

    1. Shaping the V-bar into a genuine V shape accomplishes a lot in terms of cleaning things up and getting things more focused.  On soft material you really can't get too sharp though there is probably a practical limit.
    2. Excessively long duplex sections are a problem but they are less of a problem if the counterbearing angle is more acute and the V bar is well shaped. 
    3. A short duplex segment will generally produce less noise than a long one.
    4. A tuned duplex can give rise to unwanted noise and more rapid loss of energy in the speaking section.
    5. Muting the duplex will rob the speaking length of energy, more so on longer duplex sections (ironically since they tend to be more noisy there is a greater inclination to mute them which will just steal more energy from the speaking length, effectively).
    6. Longer duplex sections need more acute counterbearing angles than short ones.
    7. Short duplex sections with acute counterbearing angles can cause rapid wear on the capo and rendering problems or, in the worse case, string breaking problems.
    7. On most grands the risk of getting too short with the duplex doesn't exist because of the general plate configuration.  (Contrary to Ed I don't find problems on uprights with very short duplex sections that I can attribute directly to the duplex itself.)
    8. In the words of Rick Baldassin (quoting Norman Neblett) don't believe your own bullshit.   

    BTW Here's a video which is illustrative of the longitudinal traveling wave on a bass string.  You can see the periodic impulse of this wave after the hammer strikes the string.   There are many others available.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni_RNChtLVM

    Clint, you are free to fix any typos that I missed.

    -------------------------------------------
    David Love RPT
    www.davidlovepianos.com
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net
    415 407 8320
    -------------------------------------------




  • 125.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-13-2014 16:14
    All right, I plead guilty to oversimplification. It was obvious to me that terms were being being used at cross purposes, and that as a result there was no possibility of productive communication. Given the lack of consistency in the literature and among physicists, that may not be surprising. I assumed we were talking along the lines of Ellis and Conklin's usage (specifically with respect to longitudinal and transverse modes of strings), which is mirrored in Giordano and Korty (which Ed M cited). Ed is obviously going far beyond that usage, bringing in a lot of other potential meanings, which, well, makes it impossible to communicate. I'll leave it at that.

    Nice summation of various things, David. 

    I especially like your last comment <G> 

    "8. In the words of Rick Baldassin (quoting Norman Neblett) don't believe your own bullshit."


    -------------------------------------------
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico
    http://fredsturm.net
    "When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
    -------------------------------------------




  • 126.  RE: Reshaping the capo bar in situ

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 08-13-2014 21:10
    David, thanks for posting a list of points that makes response simpler. 
    Point 1. Glad someone finally agrees with my V-bar specifications described in my book from the mid 1980's, and have spent nearly 40 years of experience with, and advocacy for this fact.
    Point 2. My Fully Tempered Duplex scale has some duplex lengths at +50mm in the upper octave. The two pianos you heard in Bellevue are that way. Did you notice any noises?
    Point 3. I have proven it depends on more than the variable of length.
    Point 4. Agreed if "tuned" means T-mode consonance.
    Point 5. Agreed.
    Point 6. No evidence from my practice of this.
    Point 7. Agreed, but isn't it curious how grands with short monotone duplexes sound like uprights?
    Point 8. Appropriate where applicable. 

    -------------------------------------------
    Edward McMorrow
    Edmonds WA
    425-299-3431
    -------------------------------------------