Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Damper Regulation difficulty

Over the course of my recent search to buy a piano I've noticed that more often than not, dampers are not regulated as I expect (I've noticed this on new and used Steinways, Yamahas, Petrofs, and other major brands).

My expectation (a specific example which applies to more than these three notes):
1. I push the damper pedal all the way down.
2. I play the notes C1 (forte), E5 (mezzo forte) and G5 (mezzo forte).
3. I release all three keys with my fingers.
4. As I release the damper pedal very slowly, I expect C1 to remain (along with a few overtones), but expect E5 and G5 to disappear. Once the pedal is released completely, all notes disappear of course.

In this experiment on many pianos, I've found frequently that the bass note disappears first, or that all notes disappear at the same time, or sometimes they happen in some other order (ie E5, C1 then G5).

My questions:
1. Are dampers that difficult to regulate correctly? I recently heard a tech mention that he finds fixing damper issues like this difficult, and am curious if others share this sentiment.
2. How long does it typically take to completely regulate dampers?
3. Do others find this extremely inconsistent on pianos as well, or have I just been unlucky?

I also mentioned this topic in another thread - https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2300446/Re:_Mason_&_Hamlin_BB_.html#Post2300446, but am reposting here to get more responses on this specific topic.

Ideally everything damps about the same time. Some allowance is given for the bass recognizing the amount of additional mechanical energy that must be absorbed from the larger and more massive strings. With that said regulating the damper action of most grands is a bit simpler than the tighter spaces of an upright.

Wedge dampers damp differently from flat dampers, and they are in the lower notes. The wedges interfere with the vibrations before a flat damper will touch the strings, all else being equal. So your expectations are not correct.

That said, damper regulation is difficult, and depends on a number of other things.

In regards to my expectations not being correct:

"The half pedal influences differently the upper and lower parts of the pianoforte; the change from full to half pedal shuts off the upper and middle tones, but has only slight effect upon the lower ones." - from "Guide to the proper use of the Pianoforte Pedals" by Anton Rubinstein.

No offense, but I'm pretty sure Rubinstein knew what he was talking about.

The manufacturers say otherwise.

To a certain degree, the timing of damper cutoff across the compass is customizable. The way you want them regulated is very possible but not all pianos are regulated that way. And most pianos ARE in need of some damper regulation after being shipped to a dealers floor.

Some artists will test the damper regulation by depressing the pedal just enough to start to lift the dampers, then play all the notes staccato successively leaving enough time between notes to hear if they still ring or are completely cut off. These pianists want even cutoff across the compass and they flutter the pedal to achieve much of the musical effect you are describing. Bass dampers work slower, so with an even cutoff, you just barely bring the dampers down to all the strings and then quickly back up-this stops the treble notes and the heavy bass strings still are ringing because they didn't spend enough time damped.

A technician skilled in damper regulation should be able to make a damper system in good condition work to your expectations in an hour or so.

Rarely are grand piano dampers regulated to levels that they should be. If you are buying a new piano, you have every right to expect that the dampers work properly. Clearly, it is something that you have noticed, but may piano buyers never even think about looking at this detail--until they notice it sometime after the fact. Hence, another reason why consumers need to have a detailed evaluation of the piano that they intend to buy.

Damper work is not difficult, but it can be very time consuming to achieve perfection (i.e., depending on the piano). Few piano technicians have any/enough experience in this area.

If you'd like to better evaluate the overall condition yourself, find the point in the pedal where a mp staccato blow has a short/soft predictable decay, then test every note against the length of their decays. I do this by adjusting the pedal rod, so I know the pedal is held in a stable and consistent position, but you can also get the general ideal just by using your foot. Normally, the response will be all over the place, which is why pianists have had to learn how to flutter pedal.

When soft damper felts are regulated precisely, they produce gorgeous musical results that you will not soon forget.

the treble raising a hair sooner helps the playing, also, in my opinion, not easy to use half pedaling if it is not the case.

But, due to the raise in 2 motions of the dampers, it is not easy to regulate, I find.

Testing as you do may help indeed, just changing a little the moment for the treble part or knowing damping will be slower there.
The idea is to be able to keep clarity in melodic part while using the pedal without the basses mixing the tone by resonances. May be it can be understood differdntly I am not Artur Rubinstein (and I am aware how much more resonance you can have with the basses open, it may induce a different way of using the pedal) Due to Rubinstein playing, I can understand he likes to have more bass presence than some.

This is easy to obtain once the dampers are timing well together, and even easier where there are initial capstans to regulate the timing for the pedal.

Basses damping is slower , too so the visual part of the job is not the audible one.

releasing the pedal very slowly also show how good is the damping.

That , plus a real UnaCorda voicing, is appreciated.

When you say "C0" do you mean the lowest C on the piano? If so that note is called "C1".

Quality of the string leveling, condition of the damper felts, guide rail bushings, back action parts, trapwork, etc. all have a profound impact on successful damper regulation. Humidity changes will affect damper regulation as well.

I think it's much more challenging to perfectly regulate 40 year-old damper parts than new parts, but some new pianos can also be finicky.

It was always amazing to see the quality of damper lift/timing on new Bösendorfer, Blüthner, and Steingraeber pianos as they arrived from the factory. Tweaks to the dampers/back action were hardly ever necessary.

Thanks for the additional comments. It is an interesting topic that there seems to be some debate about.

@BDB - which manufacturers say otherwise out of curiosity? I'd prefer to not buy a piano from them. The new higher end ( >60k ) instruments I have played typically (but not always) achieve the effect I am describing. The mid priced instruments I've found it to be far more inconsistent.

@Ed, @A443 - In regards to flutter pedaling - this is something I have found I have to do frequently while performing on other instruments, due to half pedaling not quite working. Since I am purchasing one for myself though, I'd prefer to find one where the pedal works as I expect it to.

@Olek - The book was by Anton Rubinstein, not Arthur. However, it would be interesting to know what Arthur's thoughts (and other top performers) were on this subject.

@James - Good catch. Yes, I meant the lowest C on the piano, so C1, not C0 as you indicated.

Indeed, it is a very interesting topic, but what's more interesting: the "half pedal" technique--as experienced by 19th century pianists like Anton Rubinstein--is not executable on new/modern pianos unless specifically regulated for!!! That is why the typical pianist has no real concept of what it in terms of actual modern day practice.

Then, stay away from pianos like Steinway and Yamaha. These pianos have harder damper felts and damper systems that do not allow for microscopic/detailed damper timing work. Unless you mutilate the damper tray felt with incisions and shims, but even then, it is far from perfect.

The "half pedal" technique starts and ends with soft damper felts. It is the transitional period from which the damper weight is fully engaged until completely removed from the strings (i.e., the period where the soft felt is limiting some, but not all, of the vibrations). Ideally, this is regulated until ALL of the notes resound through various positions/weights of the dampers, in the same manner, across the entire register--even in the bass! The problem with extremely soft damper felts [which results in an excellent/large range of half pedal response]: they will compress quickly over time and the weight of the damper, reducing the range and changing the response. Most modern piano manufactures don't care about the importance of half pedal function, and instead make the felts harder so they 'function' for a longer period of time (i.e., soft felts will compress differently across the register, more in tenor area than in the treble because of the difference in weight). If manufacturers really cared about music and the needs of artists, they would go back to softer felts and teach technicians how to better deal with them.

There is a way, however, to extend this half pedal range even further--it has been forgotten by most piano technicians these days, but it was, in fact, employed often in the past. It also explains why the OP would say that C1 should last longer that the other notes. Bass damper timing can be set for an early rise. There is a draw back in some situations with articulated notes in the lowest end of piano, especially if the pianist is riding the pedal, but it is usually something that they can learn to deal with. An early bass damper timing (e.g., an octave of the single wound strings) also makes the piano sound more resonant.

It is for this reason, I fully appreciate the variability of Bösendorfer's 290 and the extra notes in the bass. I can instead use the extra notes, that nobody uses anyway, to further increase the half pedal response and add/change the room resonance (i.e., by setting the last damper felts to always, ever so slightly on a microscopic level, be up = creating a sense of reverb), without having to deal with the limitations of setting the notes that pianists actually use to time early.

I do not know any manufacturers that specify that the dampers should lift other than evenly with the pedal.

Very interesting. I have never sought to do this, but I will try it next week. I normally set the lowest notes on the 290 to equally support resonance at C4-G#4 & C5-G#5. It occurs to me, now, that I could also probably time the first octave on the top (i.e., F#5-F#6) for an early raise as well. Since the top sections of pianos have no dampers anyway, this might make for a nicer transition. Any suggestions on how far to go with this?

Indeed. Yet another area where modern piano manufactures pay little/no attention. That is worthy of an entire thread all to itself. Short story: modern hammers are too wide for the hammers to be centred on the strings, the action to shift to a position in between the normal position string marks, and to also clear the left string. [sigh]...that's what happens when you don't have piano builders, knowledgable about the function of the entire instrument, in charge of designing and building pianos in factories.

Lifting evenly with the pedal is a visual and sales/marketing issue; lifting evenly with sound is the issue desired by pianist.

Long ago, when I was doing research, I did read about early bass timing in a S&S service manual. <---it was in former times; I don't remember anymore exactly what period it was. Just FYI...

That is what happens when buyers insist on having three pedals, no matter how useless they may be.

Thank you for the detailed response A443. I find this pretty interesting since I am not a technician.

Unfortunately I won't be able to buy a Bosendorfer 290. As much as I love them, Bosendorfers are out of my price range, and my wife would kill me if she saw a 9 foot piano in the living room. 7 feet is the max

A few follow up questions:
Do you know how the damper systems are on new Mason & Hamlins? Are these damper felts typically softer than the Yamahas and Steinways? The current BB I'm looking at seems to have the half pedaling effect I desire. In short, I'm wondering how long I can expect this effect to last, before damper regulation is required (and how difficult that regulation could be when required).

My tech also mentioned to me in the past the technique of early bass damper rise. How difficult is this to do typically? I'm guessing this is what I'm used to hearing.

BDB - I'm not sure which pedal you find useless. I use all three. Also worth noting, I've found that Bosendorfers, higher end Schimmels, Estonias and Mason & Hamlins achieve the half pedal effect I am looking for.

Ahhh...indeed. Yet another, rarely functioning properly pedal issue: the sostenuto! <----that NY problem should have been fixed ages ago, there is no excuse for that much ongoing stupidity in the face of all reason and functionality!

It's too bad: that pedal has so many musical uses that it goes far beyond what most pianist even imagine, but since it is not reliable among pianos, pianists are not encouraged to experiment with its larger function.

I assume Mason & Hamlin uses WNG's Damper Action--since the companies are connected and they use the other WNG parts. That system allows for very precise regulation of damper timing at the key (i.e., the spoons) and individual damper timing with the pedal (i.e., the black capstans). That is the major problem with the Steinway and Yamaha system: what you change for the pedal, ALSO changes the damper timing with the key. <---which is an absurd antiquated approach!

I don't know how soft the felts are with current Mason & Hamlins, but regulating the damper system [in theory] would be more accurate and stable than even Bösendorfer. I would have zero reservations with that system. It is very easy to touch up the system as it ages (i.e., as the felt(s) naturally compress with use).

Early damper timing is extremely easy to adjust, especially with a damper action like WNG's. It takes maybe c.5 mins to pull the action and roughly set the new height by adjusting that capstan screws. Once you experiment back-and-forth with the amount of distance you might desire, then your technician would then go back and take c.15-30min to make them sound/raise exactly the same (i.e., by setting the pedal rod up temporality until they have a barely audible and predictable decay sound with a mp staccato blow, and then making them all sound the same).

If you are considering a new BB, and the damper felts aren't, for some reason, soft enough to meet your liking, you can always try to request a new piano from Mason & Hamlin with softer damper felts installed. The dealer may not like you for it (i.e., they would prefer to sell you what they have on the floor and paying interest on), but it is your piano, and you should have exactly what you want! If they all refuse, it is not so costly to refelt the dampers [now, or a few years later], as long as your technician is really comfortable/quick with damper work. Since you know of, and are probably already familiar with the sound of early bass damper timing, my guess would be: you'll probably be really happy once the system is well-regulated.

You may also consider slightly early descant damper timing as Olek suggested, to take it one step further (i.e., without changing the felts). While I haven't tried this method myself yet, it makes a lot of sense to me how this would/could work well. Olek doesn't generally speak/write about piano technology issues unless he has given it considerable thought AND experimented with it himself.

The main issue to be aware of in terms of taking a considerable amount of damper regulation time: the string levelling and the resultant fitting of the dampers [and the hammers for that matter] must be straight/levelled and centred. If the string height is not perfect (e.g., one string is lower that the other two), then string(s) will bleed though, no mater how perfect the damper system is.

It is hard to say how long issues like damper regulation lasts. New pianos have parts that still need to compress, so it is expected on all pianos that the initial regulation won't last very long (i.e., extremely precise regulation). Some factories have machines to break-in the action parts and re-regulate before shipping to the dealers. It also depends on the quality, thickness, and density of the material used.

Long story short: Mason & Hamlin is one of the companies that makes pianos where all three pedals can be adjusted to absolute perfection! It is up to your technician to make sure it is.

How so?

From the pianist point of view -

The damper pedal, for advanced pianists, is not an on/off switch. This is also true of the una corda. If the pedal is released quickly, the sound should be muted almost instantaneously. However, advanced pedal technique requires a more sensitive use. On a slow release, used to create a specific effect, the tenor and treble should damp prior to the bass with the notched damper felts.

It seems to me that Lotsofquestions has an advanced understanding of proper pedal technique and should be commended for seeking a piano which will give him/her the type of response that an advanced pianist would expect.

My Schiedmayer upright has even a different loud pedal function. It depresses light as a feather for about 1/2 inch which only releases the dampers above middle C. Then, with more pressure, they all release. I assume it's for rehearsing choirs.

That may not have been how it was built.

Addendum -

In the vast majority of usage of the damper pedal, the pianist is much more concerned with the release of the pedal, rather than the lift of the dampers when depressing the pedal. Other than some Impressionist compositions, in some very specific instances, the dampers are lifted swiftly.

It would seem to me that the shape and resilience of the damper felt would have more impact on the decay than the actual lifting or lowering of the damper heads. The notched shape of the bass dampers has a very different response than a flat pad. This seems to be inherent in the basic design of damper felts. A well adjusted damper mechanism allows for these subtle differences.

It would be too difficult to put the feather light bit in. You can really sense with your foot when you are half pedaling (though backwards) and full.

The reason why a M&H BB responds well to half pedalling and flutter pedalling is because the bass is so resonant with huge sustain. It is easy to partially (half-pedal) dampen the upper partials of the bass strings while still keeping the lower partials active. The timing of the damper lift, in this case, is not particularly relevant, and can be precisely 'even', whatever 'even' means to the manufacturer or pianist.

Perhaps, this could be true indirectly. If the damper heads [and weights] are lighter than other pianos, it could keep the bass strings going longer and less sensitive when lightly touched by the dampers (e.g., flutter and half pedal).

In order regulate the damper timing of the pedal, we need to lift the damper tray to set the level and hear the damping effect; naturally, the main thing that matters is this point on the way down (i.e., the release and not the actual lift).

The other thing to consider is the damper timing at the key. It is also variable, and adjustable to the environment and personal playing preferences. Standard is c.half the keystroke. If you are in an acoustically dry environment, early damper timing at the key can help. Or if one wants extremely articulate sounds, the reverse is also true. Either way, this should be consistent; I use hardened keypunchings to ensure very accurate note-to-note consistency.

An excellent point of view that I agree with Marty. The damper is not just on or off for me either. Half pedal and the varying gradations are one of the first things I check at an instrument. Goodness know the number of instruments that suffer from gas pedal syndrome where the pedal hits the floor before dampers even lift. Una chorda would be next on my list. I like a range of color and dynamic throughout the shift range and I don't think all instruments have too wide a hammer. If it doesn't work the way it was designed then fix it. I think A443 asserts blanket statements and generalizations a bit much. But the reality is, the average consumer is neither aware nor interested in the minutia of damper or U.C. control. They just want it to work because, lets face it, few are career musicians and only dabble at the piano.

I think establishing a majority of home and public instruments being in tune is a more noble gesture.

SMHaley, my statements are based on my experiences, and are the result of considerable forethought. Why does that seem to bother you so much?

I would like to know, exactly, how wide you think hammers for pianos should be. If you think that is a blanket statement and generalisation, please tell us how and why hammers are not too wide. What is your rational, and how should this be determined? If you have experience observing and dealing with this issue, you should be able to clearly define what is important and how it impacts the piano. Please, enlighten us with your experience, since you are apparently eager to contradict mine.

So Sorry!

I didn't reread the entire thread to determine the gender of the poster since it is rather irrelevant. I chose to be PC in my response.

Please forgive me.

But, I might remind you that in Minnesota we have marriage equality. Consequently, one still cannot be certain of which pronoun is proper to use.

No worries Marty, we also have marriage equality.

This topic still seems interesting to me. I now know why a lot of the pianos I have played are inconsistent in regards to half pedaling - some technicians disagree with how the damper pedal should work.

A443, as your experience serves as a reference for your comments (we hope), so too are mine. I have given some of the same things considerable forethought as well. In some things a good 20 years of thought, experimentation, and implementation. You are, as is everyone, entitled to your opinion and the expressing of it, but that doesn't mean that I/we will tacitly agree with it... Even if you are a self acclaimed, multi-national "Klavierbaukünstler." Which, in my oppinion, is a meaningless title anyhow. Especially when your professional credit, work history, and affiliations (if any), is very carefully veiled. It makes you look suspicious to some of the rest of us who don't hide behind the anonymity of the internet.

As others have mentioned, you tend to read a bit in to things and if someone challenges or disagrees with your view, you tend to respond defensively and emotionally, and occasionally you may avoid a direct question challenging your view. As if we are challenging the credentials of an internationally revered expert technician and instrument maker with miles long work histories and notable professional achievements. A thinker-philosopher you may be, and perhaps that should be enough, but a design genius, trade advocate, industry leader... I believe you are not. At least not yet.

I would settle and bury the hatchet if you were like many of the others chiming in here... a good competent technician that's been at it at least a decade, maybe involved in a trade organization. Perhaps one that has some examples of their work that was done with the care of fine craftsmanship and artistry. Curiously, you have placed yourself on quite the Corinthian pedestal like a rare statue with the cloth still over it but not allowing anyone to see for themselves if you truly are what you claim. How would anyone not question the man obviously behind the curtain?

I won't get in to the specifics of your question of hammer size because, lets face it you don't really care and that's not what this is about. But suffice it to say I have used stock hammers and had no problems with Una Chord clearance, shift voicing, or regulating properly. That's rebuilding 101 which someone of your "status" should know. If I didn't like the width I'd shave them down on the Spurlock tapering jig as I would any hammer that needs it. The entire piano industry won't collapse over it. Pianists won't storm off the stage because of it. I did come across a Charles Walter studio upright, however, that I felt had too narrow a hammer at the bass break since they were prematurely shredding with the rake angle.

Hi . I like to obtain the melodic section free or almost free while the basses are yet damped so it goes from center of the keyboard with almost nothing to a more pronounce rise toward the treble, progressively.
I know also that on verticals some techs like to allow the basses to rise in advance, to create a simili "tonal" pedal (hence bass resonance that can keep alive medium notes by sympathetic resonance .

When I think of it, a very different use of the pedal indeed.

Worth to be tested by a pianist on the same piece.

SMHaley, if you have any thoughts about hammer width and how it affects the piano, please share your experiences and thoughts. That is the only thing that matters. There is no hatchet to burry; this is not a personal issue--except for those trying to make it one.

How do you think the hammer width affects the system? How do you determine the exact width for any given piano? What should it be? What is the ideal? Come on now, lets have a real discussion about something that matters.

My knowledge/understanding of the piano is not new; it all came long before I was ever born. There is certainly nothing unique to my approach, which is entirely my point!

If you have experience with hammer widths, and you have something to say about them, then you should be able to talk about it, right?

What the flunk does hammer width have to do with damper adjustment?

The topic morphed rather quickly at the idea of finessing sounds and creating effects with that one pedal that does the damper thing. Then, people started talking about those other pedals, and how to finesse and be creative with them, too. So, if you look at it that way, the topic was kind of about how much control a pianist can have over the instrument, and which individual wool fiber do you want to have touch the string first and which nano location. That's how I read it, at first. And, my first thought was, "I've *never* had to worry about that on *any* of the pianos I play. My concern is finding the limitations of each piano and working around them (or with them ) to get the nicest sounds possible at the moment..." You know--do the best you can with what you have.

--Andy

Minnesota Marty, are you still trying to inflame the situation, or are attempting to make a contribution?

Hammer width can, indeed, have an impact on damper regulation. If SMHaley would share his thoughts and experiences with on the matter, it could be a productive discussion that you might learn something from.

Hammer width has increase over time to add on extra mass. There are, however, drawbacks. I want to know how much SMHaley's experience brings to the table, since he has questioned mine. There is no way to BS through a discussion like this: you can't read about it, you can't do an internet search, you have to have experience and you have to have thought about it.

Most technicians have never bothered thinking about it. SMHaley, et al., how does one determine the ideal hammer width, and in what ways does the hammer width affect other areas of the system? It is a simple question. Let's discuss....

No, Cinnamonbear, none of this will apply to uprights.

Meanwhile, back at the Double-B ranch, Lotsofquestions purchased the Mason with the excellent damper action and equipped with hammers whose width was determined by M&H.

Despite the torrent of B.S., I'm sure he'll enjoy it very much.

Mason & Hamlin builds a fine piano.

But I have seen bass dampers rising first on uprights, it warms the mediums. I di it also ..
Something that can be easily tested.

The hammer mass/ thickness question does not apply to uprights really.

WHat happens with very large hammers is that the vertical travel have to be more compromised, unless the felt is sliced a little as the tail is to allow a better passage.

The wear also as the left side is +- always the same distance from the left string the felt is less sustained there and wears more easily despite the fact it is less accelerating when compared with the right side (we talk of low tenor hammers here for instance)

So the shaping of the crown will imply some slant in most cases.

Now I think of the way Stefan Kupfner describes his unison tuning, where +- all the strings of the piano are going from a higher pitch to a less high one.

If the right side of the hammer send the first impulse to the bridge, and that one is not supposed to move the bridge as efficiently as the one of the left string, it can be an advantage to have that side of the hammer travelling faster and being more massive.

That would also mean that tonally the middle and left strings are more important as they impact a "lightened" bridge, then the left side can be seen as a "lighter" hammer that would vreate more of the top of the spectra than the right side (which seem to be the case in real)

The hammer compression in any case will then goes a little from right to left, less if the flange have been papered a lot of course .

I dont know, but that seem to make sense in some way...

The right side of the hammer must be damping more in that case.

Minnesota Marty, you are not being clever. You are trying to make the situation worse.

It has nothing to do with the widths of M&H hammers; that never came into question until YOUR post.

This is a general piano technology and design issue that arose out of the discussion. Do you have something to contribute? Or, are you finished?

I would like to extend my congratulations to Lotsofquestions on selecting a fine piano which he/she seems to enjoy greatly.

The bottom line, that is what is important.

All else is mere obfuscation and has nothing to do with the original questions being asked.

And, as a general observation, you are incapable of understanding sarcasm even when it hits you like a ton of bird crap. Tis a pity, you might learn something.

Ta-ta

And with that, I hope we will be able to move on, in this piano technology forum. Which is now trying to figure out what hammer width has to do with the performance of the piano, and, yes, even the regulation of the dampers.

What about the ideal hammer width? What is it, and why? Anyone else care to elaborate on what Olek was talking about re:hammer widths? Any experiences, observations, anything relating to hammer widths [in general] and damper regulation?

I've been following this thread but haven't been posting since I don't understand the correlation between the hammer width and the half (damper) pedal effect. Could someone explain this in simpler terms (I'm not a tech)?

I do understand how the hammer width has implications on the ability to use the una corda pedal effectively. However, that was not my original question.

On a side note, I feel like there is a lot of ego in this thread which detracts from the goal of this conversation and hasn't accomplished anything (in my opinion).

lotsofquestions, I have no idea what M&H is doing these days, but [other] manufacturers that use excessively wide hammers for what the design of the piano calls for (i.e., hammer width that was increased after the fact to raise the mass in a misguided attempt to somehow improve tone, but not with a corresponding change in the design of the plate and action), creates other problems in the system.

One of the problems of wider hammers is that, in those areas where the hammers are not bored straight (e.g., the tenor and the bass), you will have clearance problems and the hammers will rub unless you make a secondary change. That change is made by warping the hammer shanks so that the hammers tilt/lean and are no long centred above the shank. This the puts a tremendous amount of uneven strain on the action centres/bushings (i.e., prematurely wares them out) and sends the hammer wobbling towards the strings striking differently each time (i.e., the hammers do not shoot straight-up like a rocket in these areas do to the load being placed off centre). This in turn changes the string oscillations in those sections and affects how the dampers are able to do their job (i.e., the strings are struck more randomly from different directions and move differently). The sound of the hammers also suffers.

Who knows Marty. Maybe A443 or BDB prepped and tuned a piano for you at some time. I don't know who all three of you are.

As far as hammer width is concerned, it does depend on the layout of the scale, the design of agraffes, capo bars etc...

I'm sure that I would like a less wide hammer and less weight as a pianist. I don't use the una corda, just my fingers. But that's just me.

As a tech tuning and regulating for any pianist who uses the una corda, then a wider hammer is preferable.

To each his own, vive la variété.

I think it could be said that "pianist's" disagree about how the damper pedal should function and technicians who want to make pianist's happy with their piano have to learn all the ways that can be done.

Piano manufacturers want to sell pianist's pianos, so they would also regulated dampers to suit a customer if required.

First of all, I have no clue why a manufacturer would want to sell a pianist's piano. I suppose a stolen piano could be fenced and then the distraught pianist would need to purchase a new instrument. However, that wouldn't be exactly stellar for the builder's reputation.

There is no disagreement between "pianist's" (sic) and manufacturers on how a pedal should function. That is purely in the realm of the pianist's preference. Pianos are built for pianists. It is that simple.

Also, the entire tuning/tech professions are totally dependent on pianists. Without us, there would be no you. It is that simple.

I am always totally amazed when tuners/techs start to believe that their opinions on how a piano should sound, feel, or respond should supersede the wishes and preferences of the performer. All musical instruments are simply the tools/means of creation and interpretation in the hands of the performer. It is that simple.

This thread is a stunning example of how a few simple questions, from a piano shopper who found a piano which provided the damper control he preferred, could go totally awry. Lotsofquestions even posted a wrap-up concerning the twists which this thread took.

Though this is a forum concerning the technical and mechanical side of a piano related profession, the OP was only asking some very basic questions so that he might have a better understanding of what he could expect from a very specific mechanism on a piano which was in consideration.

Please read the response from Lotsofquestions which was posted a short time ago. It contains much wisdom and is worthy of further contemplation.

It is that simple.

Can you provide the names of pianist's who disagree? I'd be interested in following up with them and learning how they think the damper pedal should work. I've had masterclasses with concert pianists - Jon Nakamatsu and Leslie Howard, and the few times the damper pedal discussion has arisen, so has the technique of half pedaling (as described by Anton Rubinstein).

A good friend of mine, a professional pianist, swears by half-pedaling. For him it's one of the most useful tools-in-the-box!

You're being facetious about an apostrophe error. It was perfectly obvious that the intended meaning was: "Manufacturers want to sell pianists pianos." If I, English being my third language, can understand this, then I am sure you could, too. In other words: simply a facetious response.



Just as cars are "simply" built for drivers. Does this mean that drivers should waltz into auto technicians' forums and explain to car designers and mechanics how a car works?

Oh, the hubris...



And I am always totally amazed when you proceed to appoint yourself as arbiter of what should be written (by whom) in a technicians' forum. The mind boggles (at least, mine does).

Half-pedaling can be useful, although less so if the piano is really well tuned, but it works as evenly across the keys with dampers as possible.

Half-pedaling is where only the treble (tune bit) stays damped whilst the lower are undamped. There's no point if you even the damping throughout.

I think it is worth some more research

At Anton Rubinstein era, the pianos where very different from today.

The bass section by himself have not a similar extinction time as the mediums (the strings are heavy, the soundboard too, we have to brake all that motion an it is not that easy.

I would not be too surprised that a straight (visual) rise of the dampers would allow yet some half pedaling

Study on half pedaling effect in the basses (Stulov) :

Half pedaling study

lotsofquestions,
I don't have a "list" of pianists that I can give you.

If I am paid to, I simply regulate the dampers to perform the way a particular pianist wants within the physical limits of what will work on a given instrument. It is that simple.

Ooo. I sense a jab. Or, a misunderstanding. Or, algorithms at play.

In any case, just for the record, of the *grand* pianos I play regularly, one is a Steinway L, one is a Yamaha G3, one is a Yamaha C1, one is a vintage Chickering, one is a vintage Conover, and one is a vintage Haddorff that is the victim of a very poor re-stringing job. Once, I got to play a very solid Young Chang that looked like it wanted to be on stage, but was misplaced and abused by country club revelers. With all of these pianos, I have been able to find their sweet spots using dampers, the una corda, and scaling dynamics to match the room and the piano in order to make something that resembles music for the people listening. At least, that is what they tell me.

It is true, I have yet to play a Very Fine Piano.

But here is my point for lotsofquestions: I am happy you have found a beauty, and are finding out how to get it tech'd to your liking (that is something I *certainly* understand! (I have received the "There is no such thing as a perfect piano" lecture, and still pushed the envelope in the direction of "as perfect as possible" with my tech on a piano that most would say doesn't deserve that kind of attention. )) Something you probably already know but for some reason I feel compelled to say, is, if you are going to play for people outside of your practice space, you get the piano you are given, and all of the mapping and artistic weaving you've done during practice can quickly unravel with a recalcitrant, or simply different, instrument under your hands. Yes, get your instrument tech'd and tuned to bring you the most possible enjoyment! Absolutely, for now and evermore! But also, be prepared for the unexpected when taking the stage...

--Andy

For that effect as described there, I am quite sure it is unnecessary to time the bass dampers early.

No, it was not a jab. The issues literally does not apply to uprights; the mechanisms and forces at work are completely different. Since SMHaley could only point out a hammer width issue as it related to uprights, I had assumed this might have confused the issues for you.

Also, you will [typically] not have experienced the real 1/2 pedal effect on a modern Yamaha and Steinway, as they are not designed and setup for this.

Even if there were flat dampers throughout the range of the piano, half-pedal effects would be greater in the bass than in the treble, because the strings vibrate a greater distance in the bass notes than the treble notes. Half-pedaling will either have more of an effect in the bass than the treble, or the damper pedal will be very irregular. The worst area would be the transition between the wound strings and the plain strings.

So, you are saying: you have no experience setting up a piano with a proper half-pedal so that it works consistently throughout the entire piano (i.e., without the use of early section timings)?

How do you regulate your half pedal, BDB?

I don't agree. New Steinways are completely responsive to "half-pedaling" technique. I have very little experience with new Yamahas, so I cannot comment on them.

Have you read this topic all the way through, Mr. A443?

In fact, I have posted detailed instructions for regulating dampers several times. You could do a search for them.

If you feel you can do better, you should post your methods.

You don't agree, because you don't understand how the system works. The system inside the piano doesn't allow for a fine level of regulation to allow for accurate 1/2 pedalling.

If you don't agree, go to a Steinway dealer and make a recording to prove me wrong. Or take any of your 3 Steinways at home, and prove me wrong.

Actually, he is stating a hypothetical situation employing a damper system which uses damper felts which are simply flat blocks of felt. (Very old school)

I believe it is the difference in design between the flat felts and the tapered 'V' felts which enables the use of the half-pedal technique. I'm not so sure that the travel distance or lift engagement timing, across the full range of the keyboard, has much to do with the resulting tonal effect of the technique. If one section of dampers lifts sooner than others, it negates how a pianist expects the damper pedal to perform.

You believe there is credibility in telling a pianist what he can, or cannot do, on a piano?

Truly amazing.

Exactly: you have now clearly illustrated you have no idea how the system functions. Which is OK; you are not a piano technician. But I would like to see/hear YOU actually use half pedal technique, because based on your writing, I don't think you actually know what it is (i.e., the pianos you play on, don't typically do it).

I believe you are not using 1/2 pedal technique; you are doing something different. But, OK then, show me! No more talk Marty, please show me the 1/2 pedal technique that you can do on your Steinway. For once, please, prove me wrong on something.

Please, O Great One, explain why the damper felts differ across the range of a piano?

(Yes, I know your answer will be "because you don't understand.")

BTW - A new thread espousing your concept of damper theory might be of interest to all.

Prove me wrong.

You are a professional pianist, right? This should be easy for you. Just a simple demonstration...

Ah yes, this from the person who won't indicate any professional credentials or experience whatsoever.

I am willing to demonstrate anything about piano technology: how to do things, how things should sound, etc.! That is what matters, right?

If you, and some of the others, continue to insist that you must know my name, birthday, SSN, physical mailing addresses, degrees, GPAs, professional qualifications, work experience, etc. to qualify the information that I write and demonstrate about piano technology, then I will continue to state: learn to think for yourselves and stop relying on marketing to tell you what you should think.

I'll demonstrate anything you want, Marty. I'm going to, again, ask you to do the same. Since you have been so adamant that you are right, and everyone else is always wrong, please demonstrate that you can back-up what you have said that you can do on your Steinway. You should know well how your own piano works, right? Please make a video recording demonstrating clearly how 1/2 pedal is done on your pianos.

What possible reason could you come up with for not doing that? Seriously, if you are a professional pianist, this should be very easy for you. Why the hesitation?

Perhaps a discussion on what the people think the half damper pedal "should do" would be more productive.

Or, perhaps a definition of exactly what half damper pedal "is."

All of the professional/concert pianists I have spoken with about 1/2 pedal have slightly different concepts of what it actually is, how to do it, or what to tell a piano technician to do to get what they want. The confusion comes from the subtle changes that have occurred with piano design and setup over the years. When they get to a piano that actually works, there is no more confusion.

I am only familiar with the definition of half pedaling that I quoted earlier by Anton Rubinstein. As was pointed out previously, that was a long time ago, and pianos have changed since then.

I am also familiar with flutter pedaling which I've always thought of as different from half pedaling. That being said, I frequently use flutter pedaling when I am unable to half pedal, as I've found it is the closest thing.

What other definitions of "half pedaling" are people familiar with? I'm not asking this to start an argument on "what is correct" - I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the various opinions.

http://www.cs.ioc.ee/~stulov/nantes2.pdf

http://www.abrsm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=47244&page=1

http://jeffreychappell.com/pedaling.php

Exactly: this is absolutely what happens when half pedal doesn't work, and why pianists often have slightly different definitions of what half pedal actually is!!! Excellent observational experience by the OP.

Instead of long links, which are indeed interesting, could posters maybe instead summarise what it is that they think half pedal is in their own words?

My definition of half pedal: the distance, at the pedal, between where the weight of the dampers begin to decrease against the strings until the moment before the felts are completely off the strings. The amount of half pedal on any given piano is a function of how soft (i.e., smoochy) the felts are. To increase/extend the audible effects of the half pedal's function, early damper timing in the bass and/or treble can be employed. NOTE: early damper timing are helpful in evening out the resonance, but it does comes at a cost of even articulation in all of the registers and doesn't actually function in the same way in terms of the damping effects.