I know one should stop digging when one is in a hole, and that pouring oil on troubled waters often has the reverse effect, but it's all good fun so here goes.

My original post was written (late one evening) after I had discussed hammer heads with the tuner. He said glue joints failed quite often. There had been one on the piano when I got it. It did not click but the dull note transferred when I moved the hammer. Eventually it became loose and I realised what had been going on. I naturally presumed the tuner would, without really thinking about it, that the tuner would not have left a dead note behind and guessed that the joint might be faulty as before. If that was the case, perhaps some other heads might be on the blink as well. So I asked if the symptoms indicated a faulty joint; a perfectly reasonable question, I'd say.

The answers came back that it was probably not the joint, Ryan's post being the clincher. So I went over to the piano (again late one evening) and was amazed that the note showed signs of life as soon as I touched its strings with (as I now recall) a pencil. So that really was my "Kamin's feather" moment. Continuing with my "witness statement", I then went to fetch a biro because I did not want the break the lead in the pencil!

All this took about five minutes and afterwards, to own up to the mistake implicit in the title of this thread, I wrote my notorious post about "Kamin's feather" over a cup of cocoa. The quotes were meant to indicate the cure was ever so easy once the problem was diagnosed. I tried to explain that in the post just above; I found the cure before applying the significant force.

I have seen enough of Kamin's posts to know that he is a very sensitive piano technician indeed, e.g. his descriptions of the finer points of tuning unisons. He might well notice the effects of a real feather that others, including me, might miss.

The moral of this story seems to be to fix the string before the hammer. I at least have a lot to learn about "seating the strings" and precisely how that affects their vibrations and the tone of the piano. I suspect there is a lot more to it than I have yet seen or read.

Not sure whether this is a rant or not.

PS Wrote this before I saw rxd's latest post. I did perform some experiments with, to me, some very surprising results. I put them in a new thread about pressure bars because they have nothing directly to do with hammers. They may be specific to my piano and its age, not very well stated and of no general interest, but I have tried to hint at what the scientific explanation might be for such a small tweak (with a screwdriver wrapped in cloth) having a dramatic effect on the sound of the notes.

My hammer weighs so much that I do not want to increase the weight of my kit, even by so much as a feather.

As an experiment in magic, Jeff, take a feather along one day and wave it at the hissing snakes in those nameless pianos.

I'll tell you what I have done. I have taken a piece of felt and dampered the front duplex while I am tuning. I can still hear the snakes with the felt removed during a performance. I know exactly which notes are being played above the upper treble break.

No, rXd, I must admit that I haven't done experiments with any super-light objects such as feathers, for a number of reasons:

1) To be scientifically valid, especially in a potentially controversial case such as this, they would have to be double blind. I don't have the means to do this. (To wit: volunteers with sufficiently fine ears, measuring equipment, etc. etc.)
2) And if I tried to bring volunteers together for a double-blind experiment on feathers in pianos, frankly, I'm pretty sure they would laugh at me.
3) I might easily fall into the trap of observer's bias, placebo effect, etc., depending on whether I want the feather to make a difference or not.
(Really the same point as no. 1)
4) I carry with me an accumulated body of scientific and technical experience. While this is still rather limited in terms of pianos, it is not in terms of physical and chemical interactions of materials. This body tells me that, in all probability, a feather will do nothing more to a piece of wire other than perhaps remove one or two specks of dust, which would not suffice to change any of its vibrational modes measurably.

On the other hand, if anyone HAS done such a double blind experiment, and has hard data to show that feathers make a tonal difference, and can conclusively exclude observer bias, I'd love to see those results. Any self-respecting scientist appreciates to be proved wrong (provided it's solid proof!), because this serves to further the body of knowledge.

Mark. R. Yes, I agree. I did something similar on an introductory talk on piano technology that I gave to some first year conservatory piano students. The piano was due for service and I asked what would happen tonally if I tightened the action screws as we normally do.

A piano professor with a smattering of piano technology ventured that nothing wwould happen, tonally.

I had a student run scales and select a note that wasn't as lively as the rest. I took the action out and tightened the hammerflange screw and put the action back. That selected note was louder compared to the rest of the piano and fuller than the rest both to the assembled listeners and the player. The professor had the good grace to acknowledge the surprising difference.
I had the student select another note. This time I tightened the wippen screw and even I was surprised at the extent of the change.

I have since done the same thing at all the ensuing talks with similar results.

Is this the sort of thing you mean?, if so, next time I will try the same thing feather if I can find one. I know that a felt wedge will work. I will report back.

Except, how do you know I didn't use mass hypnosis?

Anyway, Thanks for your interest. Fascinating stuff this piano thing.

Well, if mass hypnosis works as a voicing technique, why not?

Jest aside, let's keep it much simpler. Just tell me this, if you may:

How do we know the student struck those notes with exactly the same force before and after you tightened the screws? How do we know the audience wasn't sensitised to this specific note?

By no means do I wish to belittle your talks to first year students, but can you really say with confidence that
... the rest of the piano,
... the player (how he/she played, even subconsciously!) and
... the listeners
were identical before and after you tightened those screws?

A blind experiment would, at the very least, have to keep your repairs a secret from the audience, for example:

Take them to a practice piano that you've tuned but have otherwise left untouched. The audience selects 10 bad notes. You in turn select 5 of them randomly, write the note names/numbers on a piece of paper, give it to an adjudicator, then you tighten the screws on those 5 notes, but leave the other 5 as they were. The adjudicator confirms that you only tightened flange screws. You show or tell neither the pianist nor the audience which ones you've tightened. Each audience member gets to write 5 note numbers on a piece of paper, and another adjudicator does a count for each note. He writes the five numbers with the most votes on a paper. If the two adjudicators' pieces of paper have the same 5 notes written on them, that would be a clear result!

With screw-tightening, I could still see a remote chance for this actually happening. But with a feather? Sorry, no.

(But as I said: I'd gladly be proved wrong...)

As much as I hate to prolong this thread, I would like to share this anecdote as it is pertinent.

This experience juxtaposes (or perhaps explains?) the above experiment. It was a very similar experiment, I was attending a PTG seminar on voicing. The room was full of experts (piano technicians, not first year students), the instructor was a nationally recognized presenter. He ran some scales and selected a note which did not fit in, tonally. He pulled the action, needled the hammer, replaced the action and played the note again. "Can you hear the difference, is it better?" he asked? The consensus was "Yes".

"Well", he said, " I didn't needle the hammer at all - there are no needles in my tool".

It was more of a psychological than physical experiment. Is it replicable? Any day of the week.

Perhaps it is time to fold this one but the last two posts make a pair.

Mark, am I to understand that you would rather have an imaginative guess based on your preconceptions what the results would be because it would be too much trouble to perform the blind tests you describe? I don't think I'm reducing it to the absurd, That's how it reads, purely and simply.

Could this careful teaching not to trust our perceptions be the root of the herd instinct that was a part of Jorgens' scenario? I witnessed this herd behaviour at my first guild convention as a delegate, Back in the 70's. The politics in those days led to my resignation.

Sooner or later we have to trust our own perceptions. Certainly when tone regilating a piano, for example.

I agree, but I don't wish to appear offish by leaving your question unanswered.



I'd word the highlighted part differently (educated guess based on experience in material science), but for the purposes of folding this one: in essence, yes, that's what I meant.