Jim Busby wrote: > Ron, Alan, > > I haven't seen a lot written on this. Does this mean that, > let's say, a "hot pressed" hammer vs. the so called cold > pressed would go better on a CC board vs RC&S? Or that one > of your boards will sound best with a certain hammer, but > the same hammer wouldn't on another board? When I replace > hammers I know some sound better on certain pianos by trial > and error, but what is the science here, for us > non-scientific types? Or at least some guidelines? > > Thanks. > > Jim Busby In general, RC&S boards take a softer more resilient hammer than a high panel compression board. The first one I built, I used Abel lights, which in anything I'd done up to that point would have been manageable. On that board, they were absolute rocks, and sounded downright nasty. The next few I built, I used Bacon felt Ronsons, and was needling them down through the center and low treble. These days, I've learned that I can make the boards more hard hammer tolerant with a heavier rib scale without giving up what I like about the tone quality of the things. This makes the process a bit less alien to techs I do belly work for, and gives them some choice in hammer hardness range. I'm typically using Ray's Wurzen's, or Wurzen lights, and needling to suit. So the hammer that everyone *knows* will be just ideal, or will need hardener at both ends of the scale with every other piano they've ever worked on will be too hard altogether for one of my boards. The universal argument that you put on whatever hammer the customer wants doesn't really apply when neither the tech, nor the customer has heard what's possible with these boards. The science of it? I have some ideas, but nothing proofworthy. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC