I think there's a relationship between the hammer density and the string scale and soundboard weighting, or there should be. Personally, I try to avoid biases that stem from comfortable habits if I think there might be a better option in terms of outcome. The smaller Steinway pianos are lower tension, lighter weight boards and do well with a softer NY style hammer with a modest amount of lacquer that is necessary to add the necessary density and firmness. The D is a different animal, different scale (much higher tension), different soundboard weighting to match it (hopefully) and needs a heavier and harder hammer especially for a concert venue. Or you can pump more lacquer into their standard hammer and if you know how to work with them you can get a sound that is acceptable even good, at least for awhile until the lacquer turns to stone and becomes unworkable and ugly, which, btw, happens fairly quickly in terms of normal hammer life. I don't believe in a "signature" sound, at least not in the way you suggest here. NY D's have a wide range of tonal outcomes as do Hamburg D's. A heavily lacquered hammer, however, does have a recognizable sound (at least from the bench, not sure from 30 rows back) and I think there are several reasons to look for alternatives in spite of whatever difficulties there might be in mastering the voicing skill. I've heard many NY D's (and B's as well) with Hamburg hammers that sound great and don't have the problems that are inevitable with the amount of lacquer required to muscle up a NY hammer for that particular piano. My preference would be that NY produce a hammer with a firmer pressing for the D (hammers can be pressed to varying degrees of density) so that any lacquering necessary would be minimal in order to avoid the eventual destruction that too many applications of lacquer ultimately leads to. As I mentioned below, that's just my opinion. But unless you open your ears to other options by sampling, you'll never know. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Peter Sumner Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:04 PM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway extra-bore-length I'm very interested in why folks choose the hammers they do...I have a bias in one direction because I work with them daily and know how to handle them... Curious why you wouldn't put NY hammers on a NY 'D'...you say that 'the D needs something different to accommodate its heavier design...'......??? Many of the finest NY D's on concert stages have NY hammers and, as far as I can gather, are used every day by the top players in the world....many have the absolutely best techs handling them.... I can understand the attraction of Hamburg hammers, they are, indeed, very special, and do respond well to the European style of voicing...not an easy skill to master though...A NY D does have a signature sound as does a Hamburg....although, as we all know, that signature sound does have wide parameters depending on who has been doing the stabbing and doping... Many of the variables in a job of this nature are more to do with the competence of the technician involved and how they handle the materials....and how they handle their needles. It is a mater of taste and personal opinion...and not a matter of right or wrong...and I am very interested in all the different approaches which go towards making great instruments magnificent. P On Jun 2, 2010, at 8:57 PM, David Love wrote: Tonally I think it's better to have the hammer striking at 90 degrees. Of course how long it stays that way with wear and tear is a separate matter. I know some people you bore on the long side by 1/32" or so just so that have a bit on both sides of the 90 degrees to play with. I don't know if it really matters. The Weikert felt is very nice but quite warm and slightly dark. I like it very much in an intimate setting but you should probably sample so see if it's appropriate for this piano and this performance space. Also, with a D and its higher tension scale and heavier board I think you may need something a bit punchier. There are some other options worth looking at. As an aside I'm not a personal fan using the same NY Steinway hammer on a D as one uses on an M and with the exception of the size and weight--the pressing and density of the two hammers seems identical. The D needs something different to accommodate its heavier design. Personally I would opt for either a Hamburg Steinway Renner (if you like to needle voice) or Pianotek's Abel Select hammers (their exclusive pressing). But sampling is always good in these cases, IMHO. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com From: Mark Cramer [mailto:cramer at brandonu.ca] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 9:15 AM To: davidlovepianos at comcast.net; caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway extra-bore-length Right, we shortened the regulating screws by about 3mm which required re-grinding the ends to a point and sizing the holes (3:1 water/glue) as the screws were barely finger tight. Thanks for boiling this down for me David. So, basically whether having the hammer perpendicular at strike is more or less critical than (minor) implications to touch. (?) Yamaha for instance has a longer bore, bringing touch factors you mention into play, however they seem to negate this by altering hammer rake-angle. (Blow distance is similar to the shorter bore hammers). All things considered, I think I'll go back to the 51mm bore length for the next set of hammers, which in the case of this piano (in a recital space) will likely be the new Weickert Special felt. thanks all, Mark C. On 02/06/2010 10:36 AM, David Love wrote: The only issue with the longer bore and thinned rest cushions that I can think of is if the shanks contact the balancier regulating screws on a hard rebound. The touchweight dynamics can be influenced by the shank starting at a lower angle. The increased travel along the horizontal axis can increase the force required to initiate the key stroke when compared to a higher starting point. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com _____ From: Mark Cramer <mailto:cramer at brandonu.ca> <cramer at brandonu.ca> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:00:16 -0500 To: <mailto:caut at ptg.org> <caut at ptg.org> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway extra-bore-length Okay, that's a rationale I can live with. In this case however, with *thin* rest cushions I actually *can* bore the hammers to full length (51mm, if memory serves) and still move the action in /out without angling (pitch) the hammers. BTW, regarding stack height, maybe I wasn't clear enough... I have NO intention of tampering with this. There is simply no need. What I should've asked perhaps is what good reason is there for *not* lengthening the bore when it will solve a strike issue, especially when case fit isn't a problem? Steinway obviously couldn't do this being limited to their stock bore lengths, and I wouldn't either, from a manufacturer's point of view. This particular supplier however had strong opinions about extra bore-length affecting the performance of the action. I don't get it, and would appreciate someone enlightening me as to why, if in fact it is an issue. Strike-weight wouldn't be that big an issue. Otherwise, I'm planning to go back to the 51mm bore, and my only caution to others calculating a bore-length longer than stock, is make sure it all fits back in the piano. thanks, Mark Cramer, Brandon University PS I have no issue whatsoever with a blow-distance that results in bass hammers rubbing the pin-block going in and out of the case. All performance objectives considered. On 02/06/2010 9:02 AM, David Love wrote: So the standard bore of 1 15/16" in the tenor treble increased to 2 1/16" was the difference between being able to get the hammers under the block? If that's the case then practicality reigns supreme. Use the maximum bore that still allows the hammers under the block and angle the hammers back to get them at 90 degrees at string contact. There are many examples of pianos that do this without any problems and an extra 1/8" of travel requires a minimal angling especially when combined with the upward slope of the strings from termination to bridge. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Mark Cramer Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 8:43 PM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: [CAUT] Steinway extra-bore-length A week or so back, Jon Page mentioned the correct method of calculating hammer-bore length. Thanks for that Jon, it's the same method we use, excepting where the hammers are deliberately pitched, but here's a funny story from a few years... okay, a decade ago: I was preparing hammers for a 1980's D and found that bore length worked out about 3mm (1/8th) longer than spec. Since we tend to buy our hammers un-trimmed and extra-length, it was no problem to bore them with plenty of tail length. As a caution, I tested samples on the bench and all was fine. Fine... until installing the action that is. The action wouldn't fit back in the piano... even with the shanks buried in the cushions, no deal! (that was the chuckle part, the rest is pretty boring, but I do have a question) So, we thinned the cushions and even shortened the balancier height adjustment screws. All worked wonderfully, and three years later I repeated the dimensions with the next set of hammers. Three years later again, I was pressed for time and ordered some pre-hung aftermarket hammers. The supplier was quite adamant that the hammers be bored to original spec, even though this would result in over-strike. Knowing I had room to push the action back (return to factory position), I went along with their advice, even though it meant replacing cushions, etc. Now it is "three years later" yet again, and time for fresh hammers. I really like the idea of the hammers being at right angles to the string, and the shanks horizontal at strike, which is the result we get with Jon's measurements. However, I wonder about the implications of the extra-long bore... aside from the need to get the action in and out of the piano that is. Raising the stack (3mm) would take care of things, but this is really a very efficient action, and I neither want, nor see a need to tamper with that. What's more, I can't say I really noticed a difference in performance with either bore dimension. The Question: So, what are the rest of you (and Jon) doing in this situation, and why? thanks, Mark Cramer, RPT Brandon University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100602/e2791ed5/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC