[CAUT] Hammers

[David Love]

I realize that there are a variety of approaches to lacquering and on a
standard belly it probably doesn’t make that much difference as long as the
solution is a reasonable strength.  On a standard Steinway belly you can
lacquer right over the top if you don’t mind needling out the zings that
form but you can still do it without any ill effects.  In the past I’ve
lacquered right over the top and then gone back and with a hypo oiler put
just a couple of drops of pure acetone on the very crown of the hammer to
reduce the zing.  Generally speaking that approach is ok as is wicking the
lacquer in from the shoulder or carefully applying it just over the top of
the wood core from the side of the hammer.  On these bellies, however, (and
Del should probably be consulted on the approach since he knows exactly what
he did) I’ve found that normal lacquer protocols can be dangerous.  I’m
thinking of an S&S O that I put a new belly in, total Fandrich design in
terms of soundboard and rib weighting and it got Ronsen Bacon hammers.
There is not one drop of lacquer on those hammers (and we know how soft they
are) and each time I visit that piano I’m voicing it down somewhat to suit
the customer whose taste does not favor an overly dark piano.  There are
other examples of pianos I've done (B's, L's, O's, M's).  It’s just that the
belly is so responsive that all it needs is that soft hammer to drive it and
develop the full range of partials. So a lacquering of any type not
carefully thought out in terms of this particular belly could create
problems.  On the D belly as described it probably tolerates a bit more
firmness or weight (or both) but still one should exercise caution.  On
standard bellies there's more leeway.  At least in my experience.

David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com

From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Fred
Sturm
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 5:57 PM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Hammers

I would certainly defer to your opinion on this particular soundboard style,
as I don't have experience with it. I did want to point out this alternative
approach, though, for lacquering hammers, in addition to shoulders or soak
from the top. Adding lacquer at the core can be done very subtly and
gradually. Apply right at the tip of the core, and let it soak an area more
or less circular around that point, which can be controlled pretty precisely
with a small enough hypo needle. If it wasn't enough, another application
can build a layer that creates a larger circle. Needling with one long
needle can back it off. There is no addition of brittle attack zing in the
softer parts of the range, as with surface application, and there is a
faster build of power compared to shoulder application. It's another option
that is out there, an easy and cheap experiment short of hammer replacement.
Fred
On Jun 24, 2010, at 3:52 PM, David Love wrote:


As a comparison I would say not on these bellies.  A strong application to
the lower shoulders will produce something different than an attempt to wick
the same solution to within 2 mm of the crown.  That strong solution which
will reinforce the lower shoulder will not produce the same result beneath
the strike point.  Under the strike point it will be too harsh sounding.  I
don't know this particular piano but having seen many of Del's iterations
and designs I would say that you must be cautious with lacquer solutions.
The bellies are light and tend to respond very adequately with softer
hammers.  The idea that a D belly would even be close to something
acceptable with an unreinforced Ronsen Bacon hammer should be a clue as to
the responsiveness.   If you want to wick something under the crown then a
much lighter solution is in order than the one which will be used to
reinforce the lower shoulders.  At least that's been my experience.   

David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com

Regards,
Fred Sturm
fssturm at unm.edu
“Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape
it.” Brecht