should you regulate before voicing?
Brian
THE QUESTION
I hesitate to ask this after the recent thread about voicing, but this
is a serious question. I'll pop the question first. My tuner wants
to tune and check the regulation of the piano before he voices it for
me. He estimates up to a days labour. Tuning makes sense, but
regulation?
THE BACKGROUND
My Yamaha C7 is a little over a year old. When delivered, it was
bright enough to cut through reinforced concrete. I have had it tuned
by the "pro tuners" in my town. You know, the guys who charge 40%
more and who are booked up 2 months in advance because all the owners
of grands use them as does the local conservatorium. The guy who did
the first two tunings voiced it straight after delivery, even though
he was ultra-conservative and according to legend would never do
voicing on a new piano. Even he could see that it was way too bright
for a home environment (sorry, Jon). He seemed to use mainly shallow
needles in the 10 - 2 o'clock region. The initial effect was quite
nice.
So far it has had 3 1/2 tunings. The first pro left town and I am now
dealing with the remaining one, who is more modern in his outlook and
he at least agreed to trim the damper felts (Lisa to note - this did
not eliminate the problem entirely, but it is now tolerable). He did
the last 1 1/2 tunings as well, so he is familar with the piano.
After the initial voicing, I got the effect described in the previous
voicing thread. Mellow at p and bright at f, with resonable
graduation. Over the last year (and especially after a rather LOUD
concert on it just recently, not by me), it seems uniformly bright,
even at pp, especially in the mid to upper frequencies. I find that
this makes it hard to control.
I explained all this to the tuner, and he said no problems, but he
would want to allow up to a whole day so that he could check the
regulation and tune first. He explained that these three are all
closely related. I'm no technician, but I think its regulation is
pretty good. The first guy set it up well only a little over a year
ago, and the second guy has never made any adverse comment about it.
Now I do *really* want this graduated tone, but (up to) a full day for
a pro tuner is not cheap you understand. Hence before I take a deep
breath & commit, I would like a second (and third and ....) opinion
about whether this sounds reasonable. Views?
Thanks
Brian
Downunder
Ed Foote
the first two tunings voiced it straight after delivery, even though
needles in the 10 - 2 o'clock region. The initial effect was quite nice.
(and especially after a rather LOUD concert on it just recently, not by me), it
seems uniformly bright,
even at pp, especially in the mid to upper frequencies. I find that this makes
it hard to control.<<
Greetings,
It doesn't sound like he did more than kill the felt on the top of the
hammer. This will take the high-end zing out of the attack, but it is a very
short-lived voicing and now the hammers will have to be reshaped and voiced
again.
Deeper needling, farther from the top, will give a lot more durable
voicing, as well as increasing the fundamental, rather than just reducing the
higher harmonics.
I'm no technician, but I think its regulation is
pretty good. The first guy set it up well only a little over a year ago, and
the second guy has never made any adverse comment about it.
Now I do *really* want this graduated tone, but (up to) a full day for a pro
tuner is not cheap you understand. Hence before I take a deep breath & commit,
I would like a second (and third and ....) opinion
about whether this sounds reasonable. Views?>>
It may or may not need a whole day. That seems like a lot, but if you are
looking at 100% performance level work, it could be a normal amount of time.
Before you let anyone loose with your hammers, familiarize yourself with their
idea of voicing. This means playing two pianos that they have done similar
work on in the past month! There is no subsititute for actually hearing the
work instead of the sales pitch.
Regards,
Ed Foote
Nashville, Tennessee
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
Rick Clark
describe: If you are saying he will resurface the hammers (due to
string grooves), touch up the regulation, do some additional needle
voicing as needed, and tune, all in one day, I would say that if the
work is good he is a bit high on the time estimate but not
outlandishly so. To me, it seems like about 4 hours work (+ -).
He may be allowing some latitude in time in case the regulation turns
out to be worse than expected, or maybe he has not developed much
speed at this kind of work.
If the hammers are grooved by wear (the usual cause of voicing need in
Yamahas), then resurfaced, it's good to touch up the regulation to
make up for the lost dimension at the hammer felt. The regulation is
done *after* the resurfacing, but ideally before any needling. To do
it before resurfacing is folly. And there may be some additional
regulating need based on general wear. Probably not much, but it's
nice to go ahead and do it while you're in there. I wouldn't expect
much on one as new as yours, unless the piano is worked unusually long
and hard. I would expect to do hammer stroke, drop, and perhaps some
repetition springs, as opposed to a full regulation. One or two hours
on regulation touch-up, perhaps less. But that is based on speedy
techniques which may not be known or practiced by all.
I wouldn't call regulation an absolute requirement but it is certainly
recommended if the hammers are resurfaced, in order to keep it "to
spec". It is part of my normal procedure after hammer resurfacing
taking care of a fleet of Yamaha grands. You might notice the
declining regulation, you might not.
That is the overview as I see it. My gut feeling is that he may not
exactly be a specialist in this kind of work else he would give a
tighter time estimate. But one may not always be able to find a
specialist because of one's locale. It then becomes more important the
work is done well as opposed to quickly. Regulation is recommended
highly if the hammers get resurfaced, but it is of less concern on
such a new Yamaha piano if they are not resurfaced. In either case my
position is to inform the client of the facts, and if they don't want
the regulation work done that is their privilege- I would merely state
my disclaimers.
And the disclaimer in *this* thread: The above addresses a specific
piano of specific model of a specific age. Actual mileage may vary
significantly in other situations. A piano which is old and needs a
lot of regulation may need a significant time factor more work.
Rick Clark
Brian
a4...@aol.comnospam (Ed Foote ) wrote:
> It doesn't sound like he did more than kill the felt on the top of
> the hammer. This will take the high-end zing out of the attack, but
> it is a very short-lived voicing and now the hammers will have to be
> reshaped and voiced again.
You have jogged my memory. I think this is what pro tuner #1 might have
said at the time, but I was too busy balancing new purchase excitement
with post sale regret to listen properly.
Brian
Downunder
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Rick Clark
>In article <20010102074200...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
> a4...@aol.comnospam (Ed Foote ) wrote:
>> It doesn't sound like he did more than kill the felt on the top of
>> the hammer. This will take the high-end zing out of the attack, but
>> it is a very short-lived voicing and now the hammers will have to be
>> reshaped and voiced again.
I think I should add here that while I agree that Ed is technically
correct that such work is relatively short-lived, I feel it is also
the case *that this is how Yamaha hammers of this series should be
treated, anyway*. Because of the design of the hammer, you really
don't want to do any further deep needling. It essentially destroys
the hammer. The Yamaha philosophy seems to be that voicing=resurfacing
and preferably NO further needling should be done. Only in the case of
complaint about brightness should one consider further needling, and
if that is the case, keep it shallow and slight, as your previous tech
has done.
This is not to say that one is not free to break with Yamaha
recommendations, but if one does it may turn into a can of worms, as
the fiber tension in these hammers is carefully planned out and not
expected to be altered by deep needling. It is at one's own risk.
Rick Clark
Brian
Ple...@LobotomizeMe.com wrote:
> Specifically addressing a Yamaha grand of the age and condition you
> describe: If you are saying he will resurface the hammers (due to
> string grooves), touch up the regulation, do some additional needle
> voicing as needed, and tune, all in one day, I would say that if the
> work is good he is a bit high on the time estimate but not
> outlandishly so. To me, it seems like about 4 hours work (+ -).
>
> He may be allowing some latitude in time in case the regulation turns
> out to be worse than expected, or maybe he has not developed much
> speed at this kind of work.
I tried to keep the initial post short. There were a lot more caveats
in what the tuner actually said to me, which was along your line above.
While he too wouldn't expect that much regulation work would be needed
in this situation, he needed to allow time in his diary just in case.
He also needs to determine how precise a voicing the customer might
want, as those with a discerning ear will have more precise and
therefore more time consuming requirements. I gather I am quickly
gaining the reputation of just such a customer. Pity that my playing
doesn't match my ear.
> That is the overview as I see it. My gut feeling is that he may not
> exactly be a specialist in this kind of work else he would give a
> tighter time estimate.
See above comment. I wonder just how tight an estimate he could give
unless he was already intimately familiar with the instrument. He
initially said 1/2 day to a full day, but later in the discussion was
talking more like a full day. I guess the real issues for me are the
time out of my own diary, as I will need to be there at least for the
voicing stage, and the cost. I realise that I need to confirm with him
whether I am paying by the hour, or paying a flat rate for a whole day
of his time, as he won't schedule other appointments that day. The
recent thread on paying for cancellations and the opppotunity cost of
time is remotely relevant.
Thanks to Rick and Ed for their thoughtful replies.
Brian
> I think I should add here that while I agree that Ed is technically
> correct that such work is relatively short-lived, I feel it is also
> the case *that this is how Yamaha hammers of this series should be
> treated, anyway*. Because of the design of the hammer, you really
> don't want to do any further deep needling. It essentially destroys
> the hammer. The Yamaha philosophy seems to be that voicing=resurfacing
> and preferably NO further needling should be done. Only in the case of
> complaint about brightness should one consider further needling, and
> if that is the case, keep it shallow and slight, as your previous tech
> has done.
>
> This is not to say that one is not free to break with Yamaha
> recommendations, but if one does it may turn into a can of worms, as
> the fiber tension in these hammers is carefully planned out and not
> expected to be altered by deep needling. It is at one's own risk.
Rick - with the Yamaha minimalist approach, what it is the typical
longevity of a voicing on this sort of instrument in a home environment?
I thought Yamaha hammers were supposed to brighten up rather quickly?
Would not such a minimal voicing inevitably have only a short life span,
as my first one did? Is this what the Yamaha philosophy consigns us to?
I just discussed all this with my tech. I asked about how long a
voicing might last on average. After all, if it is a days work
(unlikely), I don't want to have all this work done annually at pro
tuning prices for a (mostly) domestic instrument played almost entirely
by an intermediate adult and one child. He indicated that *some* deeper
needling is *likely* to be required for the voice to be maintained for
a reasonable time, if a significant change in tone is required. I guess
ultimately one has to trust one's tech if he seems knowledgable and
skillfull and is widely respected.
The tech also told me that he expected to have to do a little
resurfacing/reshaping, so given other comments in this thread, the
regulation checking makes sense. And I am paying by the hour, not for
a standard day, which should work in my favour on this occasion.
Thanks again for all comments. Rest assured all that I am not using
this info to tell my tech what to do. He invited me to call him to talk
through what is entailed, and I am just asking him what he intends to
do. This information helps me interpret it. You don't let a family
member go under the knife without asking a few questions.
*All comments about voicing apply sole to a 1 year old Yamaha C7. YMMV*
Rick Clark
>
>Rick - with the Yamaha minimalist approach, what it is the typical
>longevity of a voicing on this sort of instrument in a home environment?
> I thought Yamaha hammers were supposed to brighten up rather quickly?
>Would not such a minimal voicing inevitably have only a short life span,
>as my first one did? Is this what the Yamaha philosophy consigns us to?
I can't speak for the typical home piano, because virtually all of my
work of this specific Yamaha grand sort is on "workhorses" in a pro
venue environment. OTOH, many "home" pianos are played lightly and
only a couple hours a month, if that. It really depends on how hard
one plays and for how many hours. It's like tread wear on a car tire.
It all depends.
But yes, I feel they do brighten up fairly quickly, and it seems to me
that the underlying Yamaha subtext is: 'These pianos are perfectly
designed and voiced to match the hammers to the rest of the design
aspects to achieve the tone we say is best, based on our research of
what people want to hear. Any alteration of this tone is undesirable
in our view, and any radical change in the hammer voicing will upset
the balance permanently.'
Those are strictly my words, of course, but based on experience, I
think it is the essence of how they approach it. There is some
validity to it I think, in the macro view of total design. I would not
recommend anyone to buy a Yamaha who does not like their brightness,
and I do wonder how this happened in your case.
I think another dimension to their approach is that they believe
existing Yamahas should sound "right") so that potential new customers
are hearing them the way they are meant to be heard, as the tone is as
much if not more for the audience as it is for the player. This means
the hammers should sound the way Yamaha intends (in their view). I
think this approach was determined in market research.
If you alter the hammers I feel you are going to alter projection,
sustain, dynamic range. However, how much those changes bother someone
is a different issue.
>I just discussed all this with my tech. I asked about how long a
>voicing might last on average. After all, if it is a days work
>(unlikely), I don't want to have all this work done annually at pro
>tuning prices for a (mostly) domestic instrument played almost entirely
>by an intermediate adult and one child. He indicated that *some* deeper
> needling is *likely* to be required for the voice to be maintained for
>a reasonable time, if a significant change in tone is required. I guess
> ultimately one has to trust one's tech if he seems knowledgable and
>skillfull and is widely respected.
I think so, too. And "some deeper needling" does not automatically
mean it will be too much needling. But it doesn't take much to go
overboard in this kind of hammer. As long as the tech is familiar with
Yamaha hammers, it should be fine.
Good Luck,
Rick Clark
Yogi Panda
> member go under the knife without asking a few questions.
It is just acupuncture, but I would ask a few questions too.
Yogi
imagin...@my-deja.com
dimension to their approach is that they believe
> existing Yamahas should sound "right") so that potential new customers
> are hearing them the way they are meant to be heard, as the tone is as
> much if not more for the audience as it is for the player. This means
> the hammers should sound the way Yamaha intends (in their view). I
> think this approach was determined in market research.
I'm a fan of the "Yamaha Sound" even though it's much brighter than
people used to Steinway's prefer.
And when I had my 6 month old C-7 voiced, it was to make it sound more
*even* across the entire range, and not to substantially alter the way
it sounds. There were a few notes that just stuck out, and they were
voiced to blend in better with the neighboring notes. It gets played
between 1 and 3 hours/day, so I suspect it will need to be done again
as grooves are worn in, etc.
If you don't care for the sound as-is (modulo some slight adjustments),
then you should consider another brand of piano!
Brian
wrote:
>I would not recommend anyone to buy a Yamaha
>who does not like their brightness,
>and I do wonder how this happened in your case.
Well, you & IB are right that in an unconstrained world, I may well
have something different. On the other hand I knew what I was buying.
And what I was buying was an absolute bargain. The local dealer
virtually gave it to me. I still can't understand why. The other
problem is that I haven't got a lot of choice here. In my mid-sized
town there is now only one new piano dealer, who stocks mostly Yamaha.
If I was in Sydney or Melbourne I might get some more choice, but not
that much more and the prices on the alternatives to Yamaha & Kawai
generally quoted in RMMP probably put them out of my reach, if you can
get them at all. You can forget Steinway. $$$
Anyway, the point may have got a little lost. I am not trying to
remove the Yamaha sound. What I want is a little more tonal variation
and the ability to control it better. I bought it on the impression
(from RMMP & elsewhere) that within a reasonably wide range I could
get touch and tone varied to suit my tastes. Your previous post
suggests that this is not this simple or as risk free on a big Yamaha.
But I think I am going to have to take the calculated risk, for I
can't see a viable alternative.
Thanks.
Brian
Downunder