Although this discussion is in the same category as a discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I feel compelled to contribute. Del wrote: >As close as they could be, yes. The hex shank is not inherently stiffer than a >round shank of the same relative diameter. The best shape for hammershanks, of >course, is rectangular. This statement assumes that we know the optimum stiffness for all hammershanks and for each specific hammershank. Is stiffer always better or is there an optimum match between stiffness, hammer weight, action geometry, humidity and phase of the moon? Where does impedance play in the equation? If lighter and stiffer is always better (as I assumed when I was a younger man), then the optimum shape for a hammershank would be an I-beam. >I don't know. I just don't like being told something is better for me when the >actual reason(s) are something altogether different. In this case the primary >reasons for using hornbeam (beech) instead of hard maple are cost and >machinability. These are not bad reasons. I'd just like the manufacturers to >be upfront about them. Renner have made some pretty good arguments as to why they use Hornbeam, and they do seem to say they will make parts of maple should a customer request. The cost of materials in the manufacture of action parts is a pretty small part of the equation, and machinability is a good argument since it results in better parts. Further if maple were actually demonstrably superior, one would think that one or some of the quality piano manufacturers who use Renner parts would request maple, if for no other reason than advertising. Frank Weston
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC