One possibility: Maybe three to four years ago, when I was at a Steinway factory seminar, I was told that they had recently changed lacquer suppliers (for refinishing). The voicers simply take their lacquer from the pot in refinishing. Apparently the new supply was the standard thickness, not the thinner stuff they had been using before (about double the solids). I heard that at some point the voicers started asking questions, and they discovered the cause of the problem: double the solids in the hammers. Note that 3:1 Steinway is equivalent in most cases to 6:1 off the shelf lacquer. I suspect a number of sets of hammers, including some that were boxed up for sale, were given this erroneous extra heavy dose. I wouldn't be surprised if Israel's experience is based on on of those sets. I haven't found the hammers from the past two years to be over lacquered. I will be installing a set on a D in the next three weeks, and will see what I find. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm at unm.edu On Jun 12, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Israel Stein wrote: > >> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:35:55 -0700 "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net >> > >> To: <caut at ptg.org> >> >> I've heard similar reports on occasion for the prehardened hammers >> which has >> prompted some to insist on getting them raw. The problems I've >> heard have >> more been that the hammers were too hard and people were not able >> to voice >> them down enough especially through the tenor. If the hammers lack >> power >> after the prelacquering then sometimes adding additional lacquer >> can present >> problems as the core felt becomes impervious to additional >> applications and >> it just stays near the surface. This can cause a very bright tone >> when >> played p - mf but when you try and get to fff the hammer collapses >> and the >> power seems to bottom out prematurely. >> > Thank you, David, for confirming that we here at SFSU are not the > only ones to have run into problems with the pre-hardened Steinway > hammers on a concert hall "D". What you write above pretty much > describes the problems we had with the upper midrange and treble - > the bass was fine. The worn out set we replaced was NY Steinway from > the early nineties or so - and with them this was a powerful, > beautiful sounding piano. With the current vintage pre-hardened > hammers the treble came out wimpy - and stayed that way. And yes, > (in case someone here is going to tell me that it takes time and > playing for the tone to "come out") I had a graduate student play > that piano for hours and hours every day last summer - she got so > used to it that she used it for her Masters' recital in spite of the > voicing issues. But nobody else wanted to play it - and I don't > blame them, because the weakness in the treble was obvious. Like I > said, they are much better now, after "reprocessing" and relatively > light lacquering. Let's see how the students and faculty feel about > it come August. In the meantime we are trying to get it some playing > time with all the summer renters - we have a kiddie chamber music > competition this weekend, and a chamber music festival in July. > Graduate students have been few and far between - still recovering > from the last semester, I guess... > > Israel Stein > > > > >> For performance Steinways I'm more inclined to go to a different >> hammer, a >> more fully tensioned and harder pressed hammer such as a Hamburg >> Renner or >> even an Abel Select such as Pianotek sells or maybe the Abel >> naturals from >> Brooks. The ability to release tension to the crown on that type >> of hammer >> plus the greater out of the box firmness obviates the use of >> lacquer (except >> maybe on the top most hammers) and gives greater power without the >> downside >> of over lacquering. >> >> The softer, lacquered hammer is fine for their smaller pianos whose >> upper >> end demands aren't as great and whose scale tensions also argue for >> something more flexible. Even there, however, I would still ask >> for them >> unhardened so that you can control that yourself or use a Bacon >> felt hammer >> from Ronsen which gives a very similar texture with the use of >> lacquer. The >> difference being that the Ronsen hammer starts out a bit firmer >> than the >> unlacquered Steinway hammer and so the application of lacquer need >> only be a >> fairly modest one. >> >> David Love >> www.davidlovepianos.com >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf >> Of Israel >> Stein >> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:14 AM >> To: caut at ptg.org >> Subject: [CAUT] Getting lacquer out of hammers - follow up >> >> Hello again, >> >> For all of you who are claiming success with the pre-hardened >> Steinway >> hammers - how many of you have had success with them on a top-quality >> concert hall stage instrument? Which is the situation we found >> ourselves >> in her at SF State. I have used those hammers before also, with >> good - >> even excellent - results. In less demanding situations. But when it >> came >> to the very demanding concert hall use - the hammers, as delivered, >> fell >> short. They never delivered the volume that this instrument is >> capable >> of - pianists complained that it took too much work to get the volume >> they needed, and nothing we did could improve that. Flushing the >> hardener and starting over gave much more satisfactory results - >> both in >> terms of volume and tone color. Which tells me that having full >> control >> of the hardening process may work better than depending on what >> they do >> in the factory. Of course, there is always the possibility that >> this set >> of hammers is an exception - that for some reason it was >> overhardened at >> the factory. I still prefer, in the future, to put the lacquer >> where I >> want it if i need to use Steinway hammers and not depend on the >> factory's alleged 30-second soaking. As long as Steinway makes >> un-hardened hammers available - which I believe they do. >> >> Israel Stein >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:04:23 -0600 >> From: Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> >> To: caut at ptg.org >> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Piano Response or how heavy the action is. >> Message-ID: <B19A9EBE-2DFE-41FD-8A99-23894CF78468 at unm.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes >> >> On Jun 12, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Richard Brekne wrote: >> >> >>> in the end... it is the voicing of the instrument that is the key >>> to the pianists sensation of whether the instrument is "good" or >>> "bad", and most certainly whether the instrument is heavy or light. >>> Real physical impedance only indirectly affects this perception. >>> >> >> >> I think the point is very well taken, as long as it isn't taken too >> far (too absolutely). I agree that the voicing "speed" (how much >> difference in touch it takes to get from "dark" to "bright") is >> probably the biggest factor, and probably more apparent than mass and >> inertia. And that a fairly large range of weight, whether measured as >> DW or as BW, can be coped with as long as it is reasonably even. >> I'd throw regulation pretty strongly into the mix, though, >> especially >> if you are dealing with a regulation done by someone who isn't well >> trained. I'm thinking particularly of drop and aftertouch. Where >> these >> are excessive, there can be a perception (for good reason) of a heavy >> and unresponsive action. Partly it's because there is a lot of spring >> pushing back at the bottom of the keystroke. Partly it's too much >> distance and excess distance for the finger to go. It also means that >> letoff and drop contact are apart from one another, hence there is a >> spongy and inexact feel to the action. >> I find myself becoming more and more sensitive (speaking as a >> pianist) to whether or not the regulation is "in focus," and really >> thrown off by inconsistencies and wide parameters. But I guess that >> is >> a different topic, as it isn't a question of heavy/light, but rather >> of responsive or not. >> Regards, >> Fred Sturm >> University of New Mexico >> fssturm at unm.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:08:11 -0400 >> From: "Sloane, Benjamin (sloaneba)" <sloaneba at ucmail.uc.edu> >> To: "'caut at ptg.org'" <caut at ptg.org> >> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Harpsichord & Organ Maintenance Videos >> Message-ID: >> <3D6FE30F2F5A9345AA15A87D185AA92F3C6A5A4775 at UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Hi Paul, >> Well, I am glad they are an inspiration to you. Keep looking. >> However, I am hoping to steer things in the direction of an >> instrument, the organ, that in this region seems to have fallen out >> of favor in the eyes of the PTG, when counterpoised with the >> harpsichord, far as non-piano endeavors are concerned for the PTG >> and CAUT. Maybe the climate is different elsewhere. Perhaps a >> depiction of these in comparison to nature will help me explain. >> No matter how a harpsichord is voiced, it still sounds like >> buzzing flies to me. I hope that does not sound too pejorative. >> Obviously, they have an appeal of their own and there place here, >> and part of my job is to help maintain them, though recently we >> have been contracting out some harpsichord work, not including what >> for the most part is concert maintenance. However, a well >> maintained organ sounds like thunder. If the institution I work at >> needs to secure funding for continuing education in what is called >> Performance Management here, I would rather get trained to play >> with lightning, than to swat at flies. Either area would help with >> the budget problems at CCM created with contract demands, and I see >> no reason why to favor one over the other in that case at this >> school. >> Good luck with the harpsichord projects! >> >> - Ben >> >> >> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf >> Of Paul T Williams >> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:36 AM >> To: caut at ptg.org >> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Harpsichord & Organ Maintenance Videos >> >> >> Hey Ben, >> >> Thanks so much for the harpsichord videos! I've learned something >> today on plectra replacement and voicing!! :>) Now...off to some >> of our harpsichords that are acting up! I'll leave the organ stuff >> to Mr. Bedient! >> >> Paul >> >> >> "Sloane, Benjamin (sloaneba)" <sloaneba at ucmail.uc.edu> >> Sent by: caut-bounces at ptg.org >> >> 06/12/2009 09:13 AM >> Please respond to >> caut at ptg.org >> >> >> To >> >> "caut at ptg.org" <caut at ptg.org> >> >> cc >> >> Subject >> >> [CAUT] Harpsichord & Organ Maintenance Videos >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Good morning all, >> Thought somebody might find these videos interesting. >> >> These are organ tuning, voicing, & repairing I believe >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CPxaEfFhGI&feature=related >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdtLvHLqMT0&feature=related >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrECqw6mHOE&feature=related >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xze5QRIAO-0&feature=related >> >> And these harpsichord stringing, voicing, and I can?t remember what >> else >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uQnibdOdW4&feature=related >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_rTN7F5QUY&feature=related >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifaVED5q5Gs&feature=related >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BqRBYM4YxU&feature=related >> >> Probably won?t start a conversation. Have a good day, >> -Ben >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20090612/d0f53912/attachment.htm >> > >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CAUT mailing list >> CAUT at ptg.org >> http://ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/caut >> >> >> End of CAUT Digest, Vol 8, Issue 24 >> *********************************** >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20090612/8c66f40f/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC