[CAUT] Weikert felt; was 80 year old S&S hammers

[Ed Sutton]

Fred-

You're clever.
Can't you turn this into some sort of equation or chart?

Something like:

Flexible board + low tension scale + low downbearing = low impedence 
needs
Soft hammer + light strike weight + high ratio = fast, light impact?

Stiff board + high tension scale + high downbearing = high impedence
needs
Hard hammer + heavy strike weight + low ratio = slow, hard impact

Is this making sense?

Ed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm at unm.edu>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Weikert felt; was 80 year old S&S hammers


> On Apr 14, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Alan McCoy wrote:
> 
>> I will be using Ronsen Bacons on it. Reports to follow in a few  
>> months. The
>> last set of Ronsen Bacon hammers I installed (last summer) were very  
>> good -
>> consistent thickness and hardness (or softness, your choice) and  
>> weight.
>> They were firmer than the same hammer from several years back, but  
>> still
>> needing hardener. But on Del's design? I can well imagine not needing
>> lacquer.
> 
> Del's design for a Charles Walter grand uses Bacon hammers. When I  
> played one a couple years ago at a convention, I found it needed some  
> voicing, serious voicing down. I was floored when Del told me they  
> were Bacon and had been voiced somewhat (though he agreed they needed  
> more).
> My take is that, for a thinner, more responsive board and lower  
> tension scale (like this), you need a softer hammer, a lighter hammer,  
> and a higher action ratio, to get the most out of it. The other end of  
> the spectrum is the Steinway D, which in current iteration seems to  
> need a heavy, hard hammer with low ratio.
> Pure theory, which makes sense to me, but is untested in the field.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
> fssturm at unm.edu
> 
> 
>