As briefly touched upon in the "So what did you do today" topic...

It's angel shot, not angle shot, although the angle of the voicing tool is crucial to the success of the technique.

It's a very effective, quick way to voice down hammers, almost like a sugar-coating approach, but it can be permanent and it can make a fairly drastic change in timbre. The technique involves a single needle, say a #6, inserted directly into a string cut about 1/3 of the way from the distal end of said string cut on the speaking length side of the hammer. (On a grand action inside the piano , come in 1/3 of the length of the string cut starting from the distal side of the hammer from the player/tech, not the proximal.) So you would be aiming the needle toward the tail end of the piano when doing this technique.

The needle is inserted in almost a "subcutaneous" type manner, so that if it were long enough it would poke out the distal side of the hammer. The angle of the needle should definitely be directed away from the crown and the hammer moulding. There should not be much resistance, although if done at too shallow of an angle it will not be effective.

It can be done with a chopstick through the strings but I prefer pulling the action and supporting each hammer in my hand to get the point of entry, angle and depth just right. The great thing is that it doesn't affect the crown area of the hammer - you are needling away from that area, away from the moulding, and since you aren't trying to penetrate many layers of compressed hammer felt downward there is little to no risk of breaking a needle.

The PTG journal article mentioned by Les K is really well written (covered in two consecutive issues) and worth seeking out, especially for the illustrations, which make it ultra clear.

The article suggests starting out with the center string cut and going in with the needle only 1mm, then testing. It is potent, so start in very small increments...If more is desired the outer string cuts can be voiced and/or the depth of the inserted needle can be increased.

This is a very brief description and I certainly hope other techs will want to add many more additional comments.

I am very interested to learn about this method. I just have a problem , not knowing what does the word "distal" means.

Distal is away from the point of reference, the opposite of proximal. In this case, the point of reference is the player.

"Distal" means "towards the rear" (away from you). This has been a very useful and effective technique for me. It seems to "kill" offensive high partials (harmonics) without making the hammer sound "dull". It is also a very efficient and effective way to control tone. "The most bang for the buck", so to speak.

To me, any method that takes the least amount of time and effort to produce the most desired results is worth knowing about and pursuing. This is one of them. Go for it.

Thanks for that contribution, BDB. I have often heard "distal" an "proximal" used by technicians. It is a lot like "port" and "starboard" used by sailors or boatmen. Whether one means to say, "right" or "left" depends upon one's orientation at the moment.

For example, to move a jack position one way or the other depends upon one's position. If one is facing the piano action in the normal way with the keys in front, to move the jack forward would be to move it "distally". To move it away from the person would mean to move it "proximally". If, however, one is looking at the piano action from the side, "proximal" means to the right and "distal" means to the left.

One good way to remember what each of these terms means is to think "distal" as in "distance" (further away). "Proxil" as in "approach" (something near).

Yes. I am familiar with that technique, I had never hears it called that before. They used to talk about the harmony coming from the back of the hammer (in a grand) and the melody from the front. I read, somewhere, a slightly less romantic notion that the part of the hammer on the long side of the speaking length from the strike point requires a softer part of the hammer than the short end where the higher harmonics come from.

I have no idea of the validity of these notions, nor does it matter, but, whenever speedy work is required, experienced technicians always work on the back of the hammer first.

So, speaking of romantic notions, who came up with the term angel shot, and
why?

Thanks James! That was a very clear explanation. I'll give it a try (on my own piano first.)

I've used that technique for years. It does work very well.

James,

If I define the angle between the needle and the string groove as follows:
90° = poking straight down into the crown, parallel to the hammer moulding
0° = having the needle lie in the string groove, parallel to it

How big is the angle of the angel shot technique typically? You wrote: "not too shallow". I would take this to mean not smaller than 30°? 45°?

....and if I'm doing one string at a time , I'll select the brightest string first.

About 45 degrees.

Really good advice.

An angel was shot voicing a piano? Has the perp been caught?

My mentor showed me the technique some years ago, using a chopstick voicer. To him, the primary advantage was being able to use it on individual notes here and there without dragging the action out. I use it, but don't have a good gauge on its longevity, compared to traditional jabbing. I ought to use both techniques in one piano to compare, I suppose. Maybe my own...

For side to side position or direction, I prefer "medial" for towards the centerline and "lateral" for away from the centerline.

Kurt

Am I doing this correctly?

That needle looks huge! Looks like "Dragon Shot" voicing!

Not to worry. These hammers are petrified junk. The previous owner who passed away was practically deaf. Even with "Dragon Shot" voicing, I don't hear any difference. It's time to get the vice grips out!

BDB:

You haven't chimed in on this one. Do you have experience or thoughts on this technique?

Yes, the angle and position both look good. But that needle looks the business end of a horse tranquilizer! Use a #6 or #7 and keep the length much shorter than what is pictured. You will only be going to a depth of 1-4 mm. (Start with 1mm and test. This is finesse work.)

I would reshape those hammers to get rid of the flat striking points before doing any needling at all.

Thanks for the additional tips. Looks like at least I got the idea of it. These hammers are going to be replaced with some cold pressed hammers. They're not worn that much but they're almost 100 years old and full of hardner.