Experimenting with felt/neoprene "hybrid" hammer tips

[theoriginalpol]

I've been really intrigued by the warm tones of the older felt-tipped Rhodes models — have always dug the richer, almost Wurly-like (if you will) EP sounds as opposed to the bell/chime DX7 type. I've been contemplating buying a set of felt hammer tips from VV, but get the feeling converting the all-plastic hammers of my '77 model would be more trouble than it's worth (anybody ever try this??)

However I also dig the sharp attack that my original neoprene tips give me — not to mention triple-digits worth of kibble I just dropped on other parts.

Tonight, just for S's and G's, I tried lining a couple tips with a layer of felt. Don't laugh.

I had two different types of felt lying around. One was just some standard household craft stuff, probably synthetic. Pretty thin and soft. Didn't have high expectations for this stuff, but included it for contrast. The other was some actual piano felt I had left over from the Miracle mod kit. Being the corner cutting millennial that I am, I just used tape to temporarily secure it on.



Bam. What can I say, I'm an artisan.



I did this in three spots — upper, lower, middle. Linked below is a recording. The results were mixed, and rather interesting.

For the recording I tried to vary attack velocity and sustain. As the photos show, the first and lowest note from each section is the bare, original tip. The 'control', I guess. Then I played the 2nd-grade-art-project covered note (white), and finally the piano felt (red). I can safely say it went as expected, to an extent — the difference is pretty minor, but definitely there. The household stuff was pretty much useless... it seemed to take away the sharp attack but didn't warm the tone up any, so... worst of both worlds.

I was definitely pleased with the thicker piano felt though. Obviously it's not the same as a 60's sparkletop, but I really liked the difference in tone, especially when playing softer. It felt like a good middle ground to me. One thing I did not count on was the difference in expression I got. You can hear in the flourishes how I seem to get SIGNIFICANTLY softer softs, but also harder hards for some reason, especially as I went higher up the register. The difference between the two notes at 1:55 blew me away.

This improvement in dynamics intrigues me more than anything else, & makes me want to explore further just for that goal. Not sure what the next steps would be... buying proper felt perhaps... modding more keys to get a real idea of how it plays maybe, rather than just mashing one note...

Some side notes:
- Didn't compensate strike line or escapement for this test.
- The piano felt in the upper register was wildly unsatisfying at first, so I moved the pickup closer to compensate.
- can see many issues with a mod like this, especially skeptical about the long-term sustainability of it. I wonder if the felt would have to be replaced often; you can see from the photos (taken AFTER the test) some indentation already began. And I don't think it's dirt, as I cleaned my tines recently.
- also wondering about the permanent application of such a mod — would I need to be careful about glue affecting the hardness of the felt?
- Sorry 'bout the double-strikes, still working that one out.
- Oh, did I mention I'm a complete rookie in this industry. Long time keyboardist, tinkerer, gearhead, tech nerd, etc... but only got my first real Rhodes a month or so ago. SO forgive me if I'm committing forum-style Harakiri with this novel of a post.


So what do you guys think? Am I a complete serial killer? Or on to something perhaps...

Recording (Soundcloud)

[Max Brink]

Wouldn't be the first time I saw felts over the neoprene... It may sound great, especially in the low mids and lows but I wouldn't recommend modding a Rhodes this way. I just don't think it chalks up to being a solution with longevity... Neither of the felts you are testing are going to be durable enough to respond to a good amount of strikes without grooving/depressing...

...There was a fad for a while of people using brass tacks in their Rhodes to get more of the bright attack of the Dyno and other preamps available... But while that sound is interesting to listen to I would never advice someone to service a piano that way because of the wear and tear that it puts on the instrument. It's best to make the most out of a Rhodes' timbre the way they were intended.

When it comes to the warm tones of the earlier model Rhodes a lot of that warmth in tone is from the tine. The attack of the hammer has a noticeable presence in the tone but the tines are definitely doing the heavy lifting. The late '77-79 tines are definitely the brightest tines that Rhodes ever put out and anything after 1976 is going to have a much longer sustain characteristic. Personally, I feel like Rhodes pianos should be embraced for the tonal period that they were manufactured but if you can't find one that already has the warmth you are looking for then there are ways to modify the attack... I would say that the Retro Linear hammer tips have been popular for mellowing out the bright chimey attack of that period--especially if you're looking for the deeper thump in the bass and low-mids from the Fender Rhodes era.

[tomogradymusic]

Just a +1 here to say that I don't believe that it's a good solution to tinker with felts or brass tacks! Embrace your Rhodes for what it is - you can get a lot of different sounds out of each era but if you're trying to make it something it's not, it's time to sell it and get what you actually wanted.
The retro linear square hammer tips are fantastic. I use them on my gigging suitcase and the tone is superb.

[pnoboy]

The one good thing about felt is that it is a nonlinear spring--that is, for small deformations its spring rate is lower, and then gets higher as deformation increases.  It is this characteristic that, in large part, causes acoustic pianos to have a brighter, harder attack sound when played ff, and a softer, mellower tone, when played pp.  My first Rhodes was, I think, a '69 model that had the cube felt hammers.  They had a few issues--to make them hard enough to sound a note in the mid to upper part of the key compass, the felts were doped by being sprayed or dipped into lacquer or some other hardener.  That removed the nonlinear characteristic.  Additionally, the felts started to get grooves pretty quickly, and third, the piano sounded so mellow as to be dull.  At some point, I bought neoprene hammer tips and put them in place of the felt.  I thought the improvement in tone was substantial.

[Ben Bove]

I do sort of agree that if there's a specific Rhodes sound you're looking for, then you might want to consider getting that era-specific model as there are a bunch of variables beyond the tips like the tines as mentioned above.  However, with that being said, one thing I always encourage is the experimentation... it really begins to set you on the track of figuring stuff out yourself, whether it ends up successful or not you'll have a better understanding of the Rhodes.  So I'd say this is cool. 

I actually didn't know VV started carrying felt cube tips, so that's interesting.  If you wanted to think about customizing the '77, having a set of felt tips available from them would be ideal.  I'm assuming they'd already be set up for different hardness, and therefore would be a very simple swap out.  Being that your '77 has hammers in a comb section, you could also easily swap out hammer combs if you had a felt set to test against, that wouldn't require any removal and re-gluing.  The only drawback to the felt as you've noticed, is the wear.  The reason Rhodes moved to neoprene was that felt just wears heavily against a tine, whether it's teardrop or cubes.  The cubes were an attempt to make the tips easily replaceable and not have to sand down the teardrop heads... but it still wasn't a good enough of a solution.  So if you went felt, just be prepared to replace them on par with how much you play it.

Another experimentation you might want to consider, is varying the transition points of the rubber tips.  If you decided to stay with rubber for the longevity, you might want to see how softer tips in the higher register might play out for you.  Softer hardness tips would definitely reduce the attack, as long as the piano is readjusted a bit for the mod.  That might give you more of the "flex" attack of felt, with a softer flexing rubber tip.  So for testing, grab a couple tips from the lower sections and see what they sound like in the mid-high area.

Otherwise, the super mario band-aid should've been facing upright, so as the hammer rises it'd look like he's punching the coin box.

[theoriginalpol]

HAHA, that's hilarious. Bet it wouldve really 1-upped my tone.

Thanks for all the advice guys! I suppose I should backpedal a bit — I LOVE the sound of this Rhodes. Like, I've been leaving work early lately just to go straight home and play it. Friends call asking if I'm okay

Since it's a recent acquisition, I'm also still in the phase of tuning and tweaking to get MY perfect tone out of it. For the most part it's there, but I'm always looking to see where else I can take it, and naturally this is the peak time for curiosity. I do agree historical accuracy is important and would never make any destructive or non-reversible mods, but I also believe that the beauty of owning a pure electromechanical machine like this is the raw relationship between finger, wood, metal and ear, and how small hand-made tweaks can change that relationship, not to mention make it an exponentially more personal one. Beats turning knobs and flipping through on-screen menus any day.

That being said, owning a 60's sparkletop would be amazing! Hopefully someday.. when I have a bigger living room, for starters. For now, I'll make due with what I have.

Good to know the transition to felt square tips would be a simple one. I thought I'd have to mod the hammers themselves. The re-distribution of softer rubber is also intriguing. The noticeable transition between note 51 always rubs me the wrong way a little.

I've read many times about felt tips wearing out quickly — but never seen a definitive answer as to how quickly. Are we talking a matter of months here? Or larger scale, like 20 years?

[Ben Bove]

The tips would have to be a similar height to what you have now, otherwise you might have to play around with lifting or lowering the harp globally.  That would probably be an easier way to handle a change in escapement as opposed to shimming individual tips and that sort of thing. 

For the wear - visually you'll immediately see  a small groove develop as the felt sort of seats in to the striking.  like your pics above, it'll visually get look like a mark but this kind of wear isn't anything to be worried about.  It's when the felts in the mid to higher registers, that are harder, start carving out a physical hole that basically muffles the tine on attack because the felt is grabbing the tine.

I'd say maybe 3-5 years of casual playing from the original tips?  It's a hard thing to ballpark, not sure about the new makes.  you'd start noticing when the notes start sounding like "pings" as opposed to clear attacks.

[theoriginalpol]

Thanks, even that helps give me a better idea. Seems like it could be worthwhile IMO.

I think... for now I'm just going to focus on getting the rest of the tone & action where I want it, and break that in for a while before I try any mods like this. It is something I'd like to explore further though, whether that will be buying a full set of tips, or contacting a local service shop to try getting the proper felt for a coating.

I'll post back when that happens. In the meantime, always down to hear any other knowledge or experience on the matter!

[Chris Carroll]

Here is a video of a 1974 Fender Rhodes Stage with Vintage Vibe custom Felt Hammer Tips- You can hear for yourself the tone they produce .

https://vimeo.com/148672489

If you go to our website you can hear more audio samples of Felt hammer tips on our product page. You can also see the extended custom line of Rhodes Hammer tips available.

http://www.vintagevibe.com/products/fender-rhodes-hammer-tip-kit

As always it's great to hear from Bjammerz, Ben you rock! Always full of great factual knowledge.

Great question the originalpol!! I don't think it's so much you will get that 60's tone but what you will get is a warmer tone from your later piano. This is a cool idea and worth pursuing. Although wrapping felt over rubber is not going to do it, especially in the mids to uppers. It could help in the lower section. Felt hammer tips in the mids and upper are harder than you might think.


In regards to tines Max says-

When it comes to the warm tones of the earlier model Rhodes a lot of that warmth in tone is from the tine. The attack of the hammer has a noticeable presence in the tone but the tines are definitely doing the heavy lifting. The late '77-79 tines are definitely the brightest tines that Rhodes ever put out and anything after 1976 is going to have a much longer sustain characteristic. Personally, I feel like Rhodes pianos should be embraced for the tonal period that they were manufactured but if you can't find one that already has the warmth you are looking for then there are ways to modify the attack... I would say that the Retro Linear hammer tips have been popular for mellowing out the bright chimey attack of that period--especially if you're looking for the deeper thump in the bass and low-mids from the Fender Rhodes era.

I do not necessarily agree with this statement as a generalization--  This is a whole other in depth topic with many different reasons and causes for differences of tone. To simply say that  tines of the same dimensions but different years have discernibly different tones is not quite accurate. Yes all tines are different, literally every single tine like humans are all different in their own way, but generally speaking it's the variables that cause different tones. Note:  RayMac tines are not counted in this discussion for obvious reasons, we'll stick with swaged tines. When we are talking about tines with the same dimensions and formulas, except maybe for tapers, I find argument for this idea.

Different pickups, piano construction, passive/active electronic configuration, amplification, voicing and hammer tips just to name a few are among the many other tangible variables that cause tonal differences.There are hidden intangible reasons for different tonalities that align more with defects.   What do we all look for in a tine? Harmonic complexity with long stable dwell this is what all good tines have in common. The opposite is true for a poor tine.  With that being said, you can always find a mixture of good and bad tines with any year piano making comparisons difficult. So when comparing tines we must establish the fact that all tines must be equal in the above mentioned.

The color or tonal palate of any particular tine comes from not so much from the tine itself but all of the variables in any particular piano or experimentation. You might say "But  I have put other tines in and they sound different"  This may very well be true, but the reasons they sound different are not what you think, like being from a different era. At Vintage Vibe we can blend any known good tine with any year piano that has swaged tines as long as we are blending good tines with other good tines. I can take this example further and divide a piano up with an octave of good tines from 1972 and octave of 1975 and an octave of 1980 and being that the hammer tips and pickups and construction and amplification are all from one single source, the piano will sound uniformly original and even. I may have to really work the strike line ) but you get what I mean.

I have 6 years of R&D with a deep understanding of tines and manufacturing them as well as Fred does. It all comes down to a good tine vs.a bad tine and with that comes how a piano sings, along with proper set up. Harmonics, dwell and stability are the hallmarks one looks for in a tine, the tone is influenced by other visible and non visible variables. A tines job is to vibrate as steady and as long as possible at a certain rate to create pitch and to create the complexity of harmonics in front of the electro- magnetic pickup. As long as you have a steady tone source with proper dwell and harmonics the tone will thusly be shaped by variables from hammer tips on through the amplification and everything in-between.

In the end hammer tips are a good way to alter the tone out of your piano- If your looking for the characteristics of the felt tip 1960's pianos. Then go for it!! The Rhodes is such an interactive instrument, you should not be afraid to experiment. You only have knowledge to gain and tone to explore. Don't be afraid of changing hammer tips, it's a fun and easy thing to do!

Get Grooving!!

PS. Here is a cool Blog on Hammer tips
http://www.vintagevibe.com/blogs/news/44637955-the-definitive-guide-to-br-vintage-vibe-hammer-tips

[pnoboy]

It might be worth noting that the tines do not vibrate with a harmonic series.  A tine is a cantilever beam, and cantilever beams produce overtones that are not harmonically related, i.e., they are not integral multiples of the fundamental tone.   In fact, the Fender literature on the Rhodes piano mentioned that one of the reasons for the tone bar was to suppress these non harmonically related frequencies.  Therefore, except for the initial attack, where the Rhodes produces that distinctive tinkle sound, the tines just vibrate as a sine wave, which is to say, with no harmonics.  That's why I've always been skeptical of the idea that tines make a big difference in tone.  Surely, they can substantially affect sustain, but beyond that?

[Chris Carroll]

Pnoboy- you are correct,  I should have noted that when I referenced harmonics of a tine, what I meant to convey is that a Good tine that vibrates and swings with a proper arc in front of a pickup will create harmonics, the better the tine functions the better the harmonic spectrum.  This initial attack of harmonics is the bark you hear. This is a good example of tone and what some believe to be tone.

For instance a Raymac tine has shorter dwell and a darker color to the tone. One reason that relates to this topic is because the tines does not vibrate as intensely as a later swaged tine. Like you said the tine is a sine source but how well that tine vibrates and how it is picked up and the signal path will determine the tone or color. The same can be said for a bad swaged tine, the loss of proper vibrations will adversely affect what's picked up.

[Max Brink]

I'll get back on track below but I'm really shocked that you guys don't believe that there is a prominent difference in the tone of tines throughout the '70's... What do you feel is doing the heavy lifting in tone if not the tine??? 1972, 1975, 1978, 1980 tines all have their own sound for sure and you are always going to be locked into that constraint even if you begin modding the hammer tips of a Rhodes. I keep tines separated for all of our restorations just to make sure that it is as period-correct as possible because every once and a while a tine with the wrong tonal colour will sour a lead line...

The '77-78 tines are by far the brightest tines produced... Sure you could setup a piano to play with a balanced harmonic output with itself but if you're sitting in front of a piano you'll hear a Mark II tine in a Fender Rhodes era piano if you are playing the notes individually. It's sustain characteristics are very different from a '72 or '75 tine--even holding all other variables (signal chain, strike line adjusting, hammer tips, etc) constant. A Mark II will not sound like an early Mark I unless you change its tines.


But getting back on topic.. the main point hammer tips are only going to affect the attack of the note. You can achieve a darker attack by using felt or cubed Fender Rhodes era tips in a post '76 but it's not going to bring the warmth of a Fender Rhodes era. You'd be better off finding a pre-75 piano. You can mod a late '70's mark I's tips if you have a lot of time on your hands but if you're looking for a vibe from a different era you're only going to get there by sourcing a Rhodes from that era.

If you are familiar with guitar or bass the best analogy would be using your fingers or a pick as changing the hammer tips. Changing tines is analogous to changes in the strings like using pure nickel, nickel plated, or steel strings... The range of brightness/warmth of a note is in large part due to the strings/tines and the darkness/chime of the attack is due to the tips. The analogy also works well for the strike line as well if you want to compare strumming near the bridge or near the neck...

[pnoboy]

Max, let's assume you're correct--you certainly have lots of experience with Rhodes pianos.  What I would be interested in is a theory as to how the tines affect tone.  One could imagine that sustain could vary based on how rigidly the tine is swaged into its holder, or on the particular way the tine is flared at its attachment end.  One might imagine that the initial ping when the hammer strikes the tine could possibly be different, but beyond that, I can't think of how or why one tine could sound different.  After all, one sine wave is like another.  My partially educated guess is that if tines do indeed sound different, that difference is going to be in the very short initial sound--the ping, the tinkle, the bark, or whatever one would like to call it.

[Max Brink]

The difference in sound between the tines is both in the ping, the sustain/decay of the note, the length of the decay, and the tonal colour (I don't know why but I just like using the European/Canadian colour spelling when describing sound). The taper is going to have a large affect the first three and the colour of the note (dark >>> warm >>> bright) could easily be affected by other factors like the metallurgical makeup or the process of developing and swaging the tine. Any two batches of metals from the same quandary could likely sound different but I'd bet there's even more to the metallurgy of the tines to be explored since they were likely sourced from far different locations at different times. I'd expect different techniques in manufacturing other than just focusing on the tapering differences to have a much bigger affect on the darkness/brightness of a tine's overall colour.

The attack of the note caused by the hammer tips is very different than the colour of the note. (Think back to the guitar pick/fingers analogy above because it is less abstract than Rhodes tips in some ways). A Mark II with cubed tips or a late Mark I with cubed tips will not achieve the earlier Fender Rhodes warmth but it will have a darker attack/strike. A Fender Rhodes harp within a Mark II will get much closer (though there are still subtle differences in the plastic/hybrid hammers). It assume it has to do with the density differences of the metal as well as the metallurgical makeup on how that affects how the tine influences the magnetic field of the pickup. Also I'd expect other manufacturing differences in the way that it is produced to influence the way the pickup "sees" the tine.



Here's a fun early clip of an early 1979 piano with cubed hammer tips through a single Janus I Stereo system Mic'd by two SM57's:
http://chicagoelectricpiano.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/silver-satellite-vibrato.mp3

^^Excellent sounding Rhodes but even with the Retro Linear hammer tips giving the bass a much thumpier "Fender Rhodes" attack (particularly in the bass/mids) but that late Mark I doesn't sound at all like a Fender Rhodes... It's way more than the tips...

[Chris Carroll]

PNOBOY- You are spot on again and your educated guess is enlightening.

MAX BRINK- CHICAGO ELECTRIC PIANO says;

What do you feel is doing the heavy lifting in tone if not the tine??? What heavy Lifting are we talking about, tone?

1972, 1975, 1978, 1980 tines all have their own sound for sure and you are always going to be locked into that constraint even if you begin modding the hammer tips of a Rhodes. Not True, what is your background of analysis? Is this your opinion or a fact that you have come to determine?  PNOBOY is speaking scientifically which makes sense.

I keep tines separated for all of our restorations just to make sure that it is as period-correct as possible because every once and a while a tine with the wrong tonal colour will sour a lead line... If you keep your tines organized like that, that's great for your organization purposes, but it's not going to sour any notes if you mix your tines up. That's a Fact.

The '77-78 tines are by far the brightest tines produced...  Unsubstantiated and un- true

Sure you could setup a piano to play with a balanced harmonic output with itself but if you're sitting in front of a piano you'll hear a Mark II tine in a Fender Rhodes era piano if you are playing the notes individually. Again, this is simply false

It's sustain characteristics are very different from a '72 or '75 tine--even holding all other variables (signal chain, strike line adjusting, hammer tips, etc) constant. Sustain is not tone, sustain comparisons vary from note to note in any year piano. I even doubt your theory that later tines sustain longer than earlier tines. The recipe stayed fairly consistent over the years. Unless you have data to back this up I feel again you are incorrect.

A Mark II will not sound like an early Mark I unless you change its tines. Once again, untrue- At Vintage Vibe we have replaced all tines on a 1974 Fender Rhodes Stage with new Vintage Vibe Tines and it was overwhelmingly characteristic of 1974.   We even A-B'd it with our 1974 Sigma Sound Rhodes. There is a video of this somewhere, possibly youtube?                 

If you are familiar with guitar or bass the best analogy would be using your fingers or a pick as changing the hammer tips. Changing tines is analogous to having pure nickel, nickel plated, or steel strings... The range of brightness/warmth of a note is in large part due to the strings/tines and the darkness/chime of the attack is due to the tips. The analogy also works well for strumming in the "sweet spot" vs strumming near the bridge or near the neck... Apples to Oranges-True for guitars, not true for tines- Like PNOBOY said The Rhodes tine and tone bar is a Cantilever beam and creates a sine wave. A guitair string utilizes a standing wave or stationary wave.

The difference in sound between the tines is both in the ping, the sustain/decay of the note, the length of the decay, and the tonal colour (I don't know why but I just like using the European/Canadian colour spelling when describing sound). The taper is going to have a large affect the first three and the colour of the note

Where is your research coming from?  The taper does not have anything to do with any of which you have mentioned to my knowledge.


Any two batches of metals from the same quandary could likely sound different but I'd bet there's even more to the metallurgy of the tines to be explored since they were likely sourced from far different locations and I'd expect different techniques in manufacturing other than just focusing on the tapering differences.

This is speculation and understandably you might think this but none of this makes a difference. The same tine recipe was used for the most part for years and there is no evidence of any different. I have personally found inconsistencies but this does not mean anything but human error.


The attack of the note caused by the hammer tips is very different than the colour of the note. (Think back to the guitar pick/fingers analogy above because it is less abstract than Rhodes tips in some ways). A Mark II with cubed tips or a late Mark I with cubed tips will not achieve the earlier Fender Rhodes warmth but it will have a darker attack/strike.

A Fender Rhodes harp within a Mark II will get much closer (though there are still subtle differences in the plastic/hybrid hammers). It assume it has to do with the density differences of the metal as well as the metallurgical makeup on how that affects how the tine influences the magnetic field of the pickup. Also I'd expect other manufacturing differences in the way that it is produced to influence the way the pickup "sees" the tine.   Hammers make no difference whether they are plastic or not, this is an old misconception. your missing the real reason as well as the science. You also said the whole harp was in the MK 2 not just the tines- so there are variables there.  I'm not going to get into metallurgy and my knowledge of tine makeup although for discussion I have have tested dozens if not hundreds of tines from different eras and have compiled information -

Lastly, cubed or square hammer tips do not affect tone at all as you suggest, they do not improve nor make worse, they are merely shaped that way- it's the Durometer of the rubber that affects the initial overtone you hear. The harder the durometer the more of a ping you will hear. The softer the durometer the less clarity you will hear and thus less of an initial ping. The cube shape is not the point anyone should be looking at. Vintage Vibe has every tip you can imagine from soft woolly felt to softer square neoprene tips up to the hardest Dyno My Piano mod type tip including three different profiles from square to angled- Cube or square tips quite frankly are not something I would recommend over angled tips unless you just want the retro look.

To further  my points If I can find time I will post a demonstration video of tines soon-

[Max Brink]

I would like to reply to your comments above for the purposes furthering dialogue on the issue of tines in hoping that others will benefit from the discussion. And I welcome your continued discussion...

The difference in sound between the tines is both in the ping, the sustain/decay of the note, the length of the decay, and the tonal colour (I don't know why but I just like using the European/Canadian colour spelling when describing sound). The taper is going to have a large affect the first three and the colour of the note

Where is your research coming from?  The taper does not have anything to do with any of which you have mentioned to my knowledge.

Where this is coming from is a desire to describe the different parameters of "tone" within a Rhodes. I feel it is very important that we distinguish between the attack of the note, the sustain/decay characteristics of the note, and the colour of the note... These are all different variables within "tone" which is the broader umbrella of what we are discussing. By breaking the tone down to these parameters we will be able to communicate with one another better in the tone that we are trying to achieve.

What do you feel is doing the heavy lifting in tone if not the tine??? What heavy Lifting are we talking about, tone?

When I say heavy lifting in warmth or darkness I am referring to the tonal colour inherent to the tine regardless of the other changes in the Rhodes production (hammer tips, supports, hammer material, etc...). The tine's metallurgical characteristics and taper are not alterable during a setup of the instrument so they are a fixed variable in the tone of the Rhodes. Any player or tech will always be locked into the tonal colour of the tine and that's why it is doing the "heavy lifting."

Any two batches of metals from the same quandary could likely sound different but I'd bet there's even more to the metallurgy of the tines to be explored since they were likely sourced from far different locations and I'd expect different techniques in manufacturing other than just focusing on the tapering differences.

This is speculation and understandably you might think this but none of this makes a difference. The same tine recipe was used for the most part for years and there is no evidence of any different. I have personally found inconsistencies but this does not mean anything but human error.

^^The information above was related to me by an expert who sourced steal for guitar string manufacturing for over ten years. It's not purely speculation and I do believe that it is directly applicable to a Rhodes' tine because just as you hold constant a pickup on a guitar with the changes in metals of the string it should be analogous holding constant the pickups of the Rhodes and the changes in metals of the tine. You should also be able to disregard the differences in string vibrations vs. canilever beams in this analogy because both are held constant in their respective situations. The way that the metals' magnetic field is "seen" by the pickup can be attributed to the metal's makeup (as well as the metallurgical makeup of the pickup's pole and windings, but in this case we're holding that constant in both cases).

I keep tines separated for all of our restorations just to make sure that it is as period-correct as possible because every once and a while a tine with the wrong tonal colour will sour a lead line... If you keep your tines organized like that, that's great for your organization purposes, but it's not going to sour any notes if you mix your tines up. That's a Fact.

...I'm shocked to hear this from someone who heads a company specializing in Rhodes restorations. The difference between a Mark II tine and a Fender Rhodes tine is clear enough that it should not be used and other changes throughout the '70s are why I mark the year for period-correct restorations. Does Vintage Vibe use a random-era healthy tine in any era piano?

Hammers make no difference whether they are plastic or not, this is an old misconception. your missing the real reason as well as the science.

Here's my evidence to support my claim that you are disputing. These four samples are both near-mint with all original hammer tips from just before and after the crossover period:

***Before***

1975 Tine on wood/hybrid and near mint original hammer tips:
http://chicagoelectricpiano.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/75-rick-g.mp3

1975 Tine with wood/hybrid and near mint original hammer tips:
http://chicagoelectricpiano.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/75-karl-half-and-half.mp3


***After***

1975 Tine with aluminum/plastic and near mint original hammer tips:
http://chicagoelectricpiano.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/1975-Rhodes-Stage-73-Noah.mp3

Early 1976 Tines with aluminum/plastic and near mint hammer tips:
http://chicagoelectricpiano.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/1976-Mk-1-Schaff.mp3

(The signal chain on all of these is a Rhodes with no tone rolled off recorded Rhodes > Twin Reverb Reissue (near flat eq) > SM57 > Zoom H6N)

^^Listening closely I think we can agree that there is a subtle but clear difference in the hammers and support of the piano. These pianos' tines are all within the same tine manufacturing period as far as I can tell since they are all after the golden tine block era and all within the early '76 cubed hammer tip period. What do you attribute the difference in tone to within these two pairs if not the hammers and supports???

The '77-78 tines are by far the brightest tines produced...  Unsubstantiated and un- true

Supporting my claim that 1978 marked the paramount brightness in Rhodes tone let's take two 1978 pianos for a spin with different hammer tips:

1978 Tines with near mint original hammers:
http://chicagoelectricpiano.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/78-geneva-rhodes.mp3

1978 with Vintage Vibe hammer tips:
http://chicagoelectricpiano.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/1978-Mk-1-River.mp3

(Chain: Rhodes (open volume/tone) > Twin Reverb Reissue (near flat EQ) > SM57 > Zoom H6N)

^^^ I would be very surprised to hear these described as anything other than the brightest tines of any period of production... Is that not bright and chimey with both original and VV tips??? What period would you say is the brightest if you had to pick a year???

Lastly, cubed or square hammer tips do not affect tone at all as you suggest, they do not improve nor make worse, they are merely shaped that way- it's the Durometer of the rubber that affects the initial overtone you hear. The harder the durometer the more of a ping you will hear. The softer the durometer the less clarity you will hear and thus less of an initial ping. The cube shape is not the point anyone should be looking at. Vintage Vibe has every tip you can imagine from soft woolly felt to softer square neoprene tips up to the hardest Dyno My Piano mod type tip including three different profiles from square to angled- Cube or square tips quite frankly are not something I would recommend over angled tips unless you just want the retro look.

I am not recommending cubed/square hammer tips based on their cubeness or squareness... I recommend them based on tone--and to be specific within the parameters that I have laid out above I recommend the change based on the tone of the percussive attack of the note.[/b]

To those who want to restore their Rhodes DIY for the first time I would personally recommend staying within the parameters of the production year because converting between periods is only going to require a lot of extra work and intuition... It changes the strike line and escapement and once you start accounting for that you open up a whole bucket of worms modifying the damper height... It's a lot of work to convert between different hammer tip styles. It may be worth your efforts if you take all the time to do it right or you may be chasing a tone that is not achievable within the piano. The more reliable way to achieve the tone you want is to find the one with characteristics most inherent to the tone you want.

[pnoboy]

This discussion is becoming more and more interesting.  I certainly don't want to argue with either Max or Chris, because they are both much more experienced with Rhodes pianos than I.  Having said that, the differences  I hear in the sound samples submitted by Max is in the initial sound--that short period that encompasses the attack.  I previously called it a ping or tinkle.  After that, I'm not sure if there's much of any differences to be heard.  Of course, we all know that setting the height of the tine in relation to the pickup has a strong effect on sound, and to do a fair comparison, that parameter would have to be carefully controlled.  If it is true that the sound of the ping is the principal reason for differences in tone, then it might be reasonable to suggest that hammer tips and strike line have a greater impact on tone than  the particular tine. 

[Chris Carroll]

Il try and read through your reply after work- in the meantime I have looked back through some of our videos and put a few together for the topic- another note I will mention is that Vintage Vibe replaces on average 10-20 tines per restoration with our new tines, they go into all years of Rhodes and there has never been an instance where one does not feather or blend in perfectly, undetectable from any given era of original tine.  This also holds true for any original tine. Again we are talking about a good tine blending with other good tines.

http://youtu.be/lS1b9VL28gI       -Felt tips on a Fender Rhodes 1974 stage

http://youtu.be/yNlmjK1dpO0   -  Original tines Fender Rhodes Stage  1974

http://youtu.be/Oo2XFoeFN1k   -  New Vintage Vibe  tines Fender Rhodes Stage 1974


http://youtu.be/QdiL9QiLIXw      - Restored Rhodes Suitcase original tines 1980

https://vimeo.com/138903754   - All New Vintage Vibe tines Rhodes Suitcase 1980

[Fred]

@Max: Of course, there is the initial attack and the various overtones/harmonics that take place, and the decay of the note, in which it's various components (overtones/harmonics; fundamental, etc.) decay at different rates within the dwell of the note and should be observed as such. I am not sure what you are referring to as color.

I also cannot see a relevance in a guitar string analogy as there are many different styles of strings made from different materials for different styles of guitar available on the market. As we discovered in the reverse engineering of the tine for the Rhodes piano, the recipe remained relatively constant. Any deviation from the recipe would yield a "bad" result long before subtle differences in tone presented themselves.

What we have also gathered from several of the original Rhodes team who have posted on this forum and revealed a great deal of information in interviews, is that Rhodes never specified an exact SHAPE of the tine. This, coupled with the fact that swaging is a process controlled by hand, means that in actuality, no two tines are exactly alike. Because of these variables that happened, not necessarily from one manufacturer to another, but within the same manufacturer, I find an attempt at characterizing each era of tines as time not well spent.

Now, exceptions to the statements above could be the Raymac, which right off the bat is dimensionally so different to the average '70's tine as the be seen with the naked eye. Next up, Schaller tines come to mind. With the shorter taper of Schaller tines (again, evident with the naked eye as compared to most '70's tines), you will sometimes find the tuning spring pushed further towards the generator block. You will also notice more overtones evident in the note because of this spring placement, which can easily be attributed to "who knows what?". Cut the same tine shorter, push the tuning spring out towards the end of the tine to arrive at the same pitch, and observe the results... A lot of those overtones will be eliminated.

There are many different components within a Rhodes that influence it's tone throughout the different eras - pickup magnets, windings, hammertips, overall construction, setup... The list goes on. Let us not forget that how a piano responds to our playing can be interpreted as it's overall "tone", when in actuality, you'd need to be the one playing it to appreciate the difference. So there are many ways to approach the sound of different era Rhodes. Take the race car analogy. Is the engine (in our case, the tine) the heart and soul of the machine, or merely a means of turning the transmission?

[Alan Lenhoff]

From this discussion, I'm appreciating that there are complex phenomena occurring here that impact what we hear. With the caveat that Chris, Max and Fred may each work on more Rhodes pianos in a week than I will touch in my lifetime, a story:

This fall, I bought a 1974 Stage.  From the first minute I played it, I knew I liked its tone (and dynamic range) far better than the '79 Stage I already owned.  Much/most of the difference seemed to be that initial "ping" that Pnoboy mentioned, which was so prominent on the '79, and made it sound bright and thin.  Was it a difference in the tines -- or other factors?

So, I transplanted some '79 tines into my '74 piano.  Despite playing with strikeline, voicing and pickup distance, that stronger initial ping in the '79 tines wasn't going away. Maybe someone more skillful than I am could have made those tines "blend in" with the others.  But it sure wasn't working for me. So, if I needed replacement tines, I would definitely be trying to find tines from the same year. As pointed out in this thread, that might not assure that the new tines would blend in perfectly but, in my mind, it would at least maximize the possibility that they would match well.

Alan

[Fred]

Despite playing with strikeline, voicing and pickup distance, that stronger initial ping in the '79 tines wasn't going away

Interesting. To arrive at the proper pitch, where were the tuning springs located on the '79 tines in relation to those original to the '74 piano?

More importantly, does your '74 have the aluminum knobs? ; )

[Alan Lenhoff]

>>where were the tuning springs located on the '79 tines in relation to those original to the '74 piano? >>

I have no idea -- and it's too late to check.  The '79 has been sold to a recording studio.  (It wasn't going to get much playing time with its older brother clearly being the favored child.)

>> More importantly, does your '74 have the aluminum knobs? ; ) >>

Indeed. You think I might have gotten different results if I had swapped the skirted knobs from my Piano Bass?  ;-)

Alan

[Max Brink]

[from Alenhoff]So, I transplanted some '79 tines into my '74 piano.  Despite playing with strikeline, voicing and pickup distance, that stronger initial ping in the '79 tines wasn't going away. Maybe someone more skillful than I am could have made those tines "blend in" with the others.  But it sure wasn't working for me. So, if I needed replacement tines, I would definitely be trying to find tines from the same year. As pointed out in this thread, that might not assure that the new tines would blend in perfectly but, in my mind, it would at least maximize the possibility that they would match well.

^^^I've performed this same experiment a number of times with the same results--which is in support of my ears telling me that they hear the difference.

[From Fred] @Max: Of course, there is the initial attack and the various overtones/harmonics that take place, and the decay of the note, in which it's various components (overtones/harmonics; fundamental, etc.) decay at different rates within the dwell of the note and should be observed as such. I am not sure what you are referring to as color.

^^^What I'm trying to distinguish is the inherant darness/warmth/brightness of the tine's tone as it rings out separate from describing the attack or the sustain/decay.

[From Fred] I also cannot see a relevance in a guitar string analogy as there are many different styles of strings made from different materials for different styles of guitar available on the market. As we discovered in the reverse engineering of the tine for the Rhodes piano, the recipe remained relatively constant. Any deviation from the recipe would yield a "bad" result long before subtle differences in tone presented themselves.

A guitar string rings in front of an electromagnetic pickup and changes in strings' metallurgical makeup while holding the same guitar's pickup and guitar constant will have different tonal colour to it dark/warm/bright. I have always assumed that this is because the electromagnetic pickup in the guitar is manipulated by different metals in different ways, or that something within the metal's makeup changes the way that it rings, right? I agree that there are other variables with strings that are not directly applicable such as differences in gauges and winding of strings but the warmth of nickel vs. the brightness of steel is a consistent factor between those other changing variables. So why wouldn't the metallurgical makeup of a tine have a similar affect in front of a pickup?

[From Chris] another note I will mention is that Vintage Vibe replaces on average 10-20 tines per restoration with our new tines, they go into all years of Rhodes and there has never been an instance where one does not feather or blend in perfectly

So two things here: First, (slightly off topic) 10-20 tines is a lot to call average... I would estimate we replace 3-8 in 90% of the pianos we service.... More than that number may need squaring or cutting but more than 10 dead tines seems really high for an average restoration. (That's more than ~10-25% of the tines in the entire piano)

The more important point is that I agree that a note or small number of notes can be blended in under most circumstances and most players wouldn't know the difference. But that doesn't mean that the difference is not there and some notes do stand out within the wrong period... I prefer to use period proper tines because it eliminates the risk of a note having the incorrect colour to it.



Lastly, I just want to point out that it is well documented that the tines changed from Torrington to the other manufacturers (Singer and Schaller?). The changes that I hear are almost exactly around the time periods where I understand the manufacturing changes to have occurred. Is this coincidence that I have found these generalized tones between the periods of pianos? Is it a result of some form of aural placebo effect?!

[Fred]

RE tine transplants: I would be suspect of shape, mass, and tuning spring location.

RE darkness/warmness etc... : The fundamental note is quite easy to achieve. A good tine displays the longest decay of the harmonics/overtones on top of the fundamental. I wonder if it is these frequencies on top of the fundamental that you consider to be "warm" or "bright".

RE metallurgical makeup: Of course it has something to do with how a piece of metal vibrates. My point here is that you are comparing a plethora of string compositions to what we know of as a relatively consistent recipe for tines.

RE tine replacements: In reverse engineering the tine, we sampled tines from every era. Those deemed "exceptional" came from every year of production, while of course, there where a lot of examples across the board in terms of vintage that fell short of the mark. In the end, our ears became very accustomed to a particular set of characteristics - long decay, not only in fundamental, but the overtones as well- the pings, the distortion, bark, bell, whatever... all had to have a gradual decay into the fundamental. Since samples of any given era of tine could display these characteristics, those that don't are now simply deemed unacceptable. Most Rhodes pianos where never set up for this type of scrutiny (anal-ness?), but because of that experience I'd now consider myself lucky to restore a piano that doesn't require more than a dozen tines.

Aural Placebo? I agree that it can be best ( or at least "cost effective") to embrace any given Rhodes for what it is, and replacing parts with those of the same vintage will certainly give you the best shot at achieving a result consistent with a particular piano. I'll also suggest that shape and mass have more to do with tone than changes in metallurgy... and that inconsistencies in all aspects dictate that a good, or a bad tine can come from any time.

[pnoboy]

From this discussion, I'm appreciating that there are complex phenomena occurring here that impact what we hear. With the caveat that Chris, Max and Fred may each work on more Rhodes pianos in a week than I will touch in my lifetime, a story:

This fall, I bought a 1974 Stage.  From the first minute I played it, I knew I liked its tone (and dynamic range) far better than the '79 Stage I already owned.  Much/most of the difference seemed to be that initial "ping" that Pnoboy mentioned, which was so prominent on the '79, and made it sound bright and thin.  Was it a difference in the tines -- or other factors?

So, I transplanted some '79 tines into my '74 piano.  Despite playing with strikeline, voicing and pickup distance, that stronger initial ping in the '79 tines wasn't going away. Maybe someone more skillful than I am could have made those tines "blend in" with the others.  But it sure wasn't working for me. So, if I needed replacement tines, I would definitely be trying to find tines from the same year. As pointed out in this thread, that might not assure that the new tines would blend in perfectly but, in my mind, it would at least maximize the possibility that they would match well.

Alan

Sometimes I think every Rhodes player should have an equalizer of one sort or another.  My current Rhodes is an early '78 model, and it has a strong ping, as you've described.  My equalizer has a slider at 6 kHz, and I found that as I move that slider up and down, I can choose almost any amount of ping that I like.  I'm investigating the possibility of using some simpler circuit that could do the same thing

[Max Brink]

*****In reference to CC's sound sample videos above*****

In reference to CC's 1980 sound samples above I feel that while the comparison is tough to make because of tremolo on one sample vs. the other the VV tines seem to have a warmer colour. To my ears there are more mids present in the sustain of the tines giving them more warmth. Are they both recorded direct or through the same signal chain (they seem to have different production)?

The 1974 tine comparison I also find the tone of the VV tines pleasing. The attack of the felt tips gives a nice example of the differences that hammer tips can bring to the initial percussive attack of the tine.


*************************************************

RE darkness/warmness etc... : The fundamental note is quite easy to achieve. A good tine displays the longest decay of the harmonics/overtones on top of the fundamental. I wonder if it is these frequencies on top of the fundamental that you consider to be "warm" or "bright".

I agree with you that voicing of the tine can "blend" notes. I'm not describing just the harmonics as warm/dark. What I'm referring to is the overall tone achieved by the tine being more warm or dark than other periods. Blending a tine into a piano of a different era is a setup process which would be best avoided as long as you have access to using the right period tine....


***************

On defining the definition of "blending" a tine I would also like to seek clarification within this discussion to see if we're all talking about the same process. We are talking about altering the setup of tine to be voiced within the piano, right? (adjusting strike line/escapement and voicing the position with the pickup?) If we must "blend" one tone from one period of production to another then doesn't that support my ears' interpretation that they sound different from period to period?


***************

RE metallurgical makeup: Of course it has something to do with how a piece of metal vibrates. My point here is that you are comparing a plethora of string compositions to what we know of as a relatively consistent recipe for tines.

I know you guys probably want to hold onto a "secret formula" for your tines and I completely respect that but I know many of us are very curious just how consistent the tine recipe was over the years? What can you share about the variance in the changes in tine metallurgy based on your tests? Can you share data on how much they varied? Did you test multiple formulas that were outside of the original recipe's formula and what did you find? --I ask all of this because I would love to geek out over this stuff (as I am sure many of the people still reading this thread would)!

RE tine replacements: In reverse engineering the tine, we sampled tines from every era. Those deemed "exceptional" came from every year of production, while of course, there where a lot of examples across the board in terms of vintage that fell short of the mark. In the end, our ears became very accustomed to a particular set of characteristics - long decay, not only in fundamental, but the overtones as well- the pings, the distortion, bark, bell, whatever... all had to have a gradual decay into the fundamental. Since samples of any given era of tine could display these characteristics, those that don't are now simply deemed unacceptable. Most Rhodes pianos where never set up for this type of scrutiny (anal-ness?), but because of that experience I'd now consider myself lucky to restore a piano that doesn't require more than a dozen tines.

^^^Can you please clarify why you tested tines from different eras if you did not hear the differences that I am describing? Do you mean that you specifically tested the different eras or that you tested the healthiest from all eras? On some level I wonder if perhaps we are in agreement that the tines sound different between production periods and that is the purpose of why you selected different periods for testing?

Aural Placebo? I agree that it can be best ( or at least "cost effective") to embrace any given Rhodes for what it is, and replacing parts with those of the same vintage will certainly give you the best shot at achieving a result consistent with a particular piano. I'll also suggest that shape and mass have more to do with tone than changes in metallurgy... and that inconsistencies in all aspects dictate that a good, or a bad tine can come from any time.

A few points in this one....

Let's start out with a soft one: Aural Placebo sounds like a terrible dad rock band name, right???

Onto a more serious note... It would be far more cost effective for me to use any random healthy tine in a piano but I choose to use period-correct tines in order to hold the restoration to the integrity of the vintage of the piano that is possible. Keeping a stocked inventory of six different tines is not as cost effective as treating them all as equal... From a cost/benefit approach I would love to agree that the tines all sound the same. But my ears tell me a different story and knowing that there are manufacturing differences between the periods that also supports my reasoning that it is best to use period correct tines.

I am mostly curious if you could clarify why you state that "the same vintage will certainly give you the best shot at achieving a result consistent with a particular piano." --If the vintage of the tine does not, as you and Chris suggest, have an effect on the tone then why would this give me the best result of consistency?


Finally, If the shape and the mass have an affect on tone as you state then shouldn't the metallurgical makeup have an effect? Metals will have different densities, right? And that would allow multiple shapes of multiple weights since density is a product of mass and volume?

[pnoboy]

I suspect that the density of the steel used in the tines varied almost not at all.  There are a limited number of spring steel alloys that are suitable for making tines, and given the cost sensitivity of making a commercial product, we can rule out anything exotic.  They all have virtually the same density.  OTOH, the grain (crystal) structure can vary, hence the variety of methods for making high quality knives and swords.  To what extend those differences would affect the metal's damping coefficient, which would affect the tine's sustain, is something I don't know.  I would suspect that how well the tine is intimately bonded to its holder probably has a bigger effect on sustain than the particulars of the tines, but I have no data to back that up.  I have wondered if using Loctite's strongest retaining compound as part of the process of bonding tine and holder would yield improved sustain.  Given that I don't know anything about the aforementioned process, that's pure speculation of my part.

[Fred]

@Max: You have misinterpreted my statement on cost effectiveness, which is to "embrace any given Rhodes for what it is". If a piano is mellow, it's certainly cheaper to leave it that way than to start tinkering, for instance. Of course, that is not how I approach voicing because I am looking for an extremely dynamic piano as an end result, which results in more time and parts replacements, which then translates to more $$$.

We tested tines from all eras that best displayed the very specific characteristics we where after, and those samples deemed the best had little to no variation in tone from one note to another, within the same piano, regardless of coming from different years, manufacturer, etc.

I am not suggesting that tines from different years have no effect on tone, but there are so many inconsistencies already present within original sets of tines, and there are many other variables within a piano that are equally influential to the overall tone.

[rhodesjuzz]

I wish I'd read this subject sooner before, being this a very interesting discussion with loads of information.

@Max, Chris and Fred,
As different tines require different striking lines (regardless the discussion if tines would sound different anyway) how would you set the striking line in 1 piano with different tines? If VV has a 10-20 tines to replace with a restoration of a post 75 piano there will alway be a mix with the Schallers/Singers.

I have 1 VV tine (A3) in my piano with another mix of Schaller and Singer tines. It seems the basic (colour) sound of the vv tine is the same, though it looks like overtone/bark etc comes at another point of how hard I strike the key no matter how I vioce it. Also it seems bark is missing when I move the pickup at the same distance as its neighbour pickups, so I had to move it closer to the tine resulting in a slightly louder volume.

So my piano now has 3 tines mixed  mixed with a mix of different hammertips (too many mixes over here  )

Anybody out there with mixed tines in your Rhodes?

--Roy