On Nov 28, 2007, at 8:25 AM, David Love wrote: > On such a piano I think an argument can be made for very light > hammers (and > soft too) to go with the very low tension scale, which is, I think, > mostly > responsible for the broad color pallete that you have alluded to. A > high > ratio with a very light hammer will allow you to not only keep the > action > very light but will keep the key dip very shallow which is more in > keeping > with how that piano was designed. > > David Love Just to carry this a wee bit further, the light and soft hammer can have quite a bright sound when played hard, because of felt compression. I think it is quite possible this may partly explain the whole Steinway hammer controversy: those early 20th century hammers were (and still are, those that are still around) very soft and pliant compared to most modern hammers. Even soft compared to unlacquered modern Steinway hammers of recent vintage (before they started dipping before shipping). And yet, those hammers are certainly capable of brilliance. I had a good bit of experience with an A from the 20's, that had sat in an apartment in good climate control for decades. Got the verdigris problem under control, and the hammers were quite suitable, plenty of color range, plenty of brilliance, even a bit too much. (The felt still had enough resiliency, though it was obviously not new). Those somewhat lighter and quite a bit "softer" hammers were on 15.5 mm knuckle distance shanks. The modern, heavier ones are on shanks with a good bit lower in ratio (with the obvious side effect of the inflation in key dip and deflation in hammer blow distance). My theory is that the heavier hammers at lower ratios can't be accelerated to the same high velocity, hence they dwell on the string longer and don't compress as much. Hence they need to be lacquered to obtain that brilliance. THis whole progression happened over decades, so nobody really remembers all the steps. But some of the steps can be deduced, for instance from the added lead in keys in mid 20th century. At that point, I suspect, heavier hammers had been tried with "favorable tonal" results, and the techs just added lead to counterbalance. And then it turned out they had a problem with the feel/response/speed of the action, so they did a complex fix which is called the accelerated action. And then that wasn't enough, so they moved the knuckle and did other small geometry changes. Lots and lots of little steps, all adding up to where we are today. Which is not a bad place, but certainly a different place. I am really appreciating the difference this week, as I have a Stein copy in the shop for some work. Talk about high ratio, low hammer weight! An extreme compared to modern, as was the Cristofori copy in KC. All are instruments capable of a great deal of expression. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm at unm.edu
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC