Voicing

[Erwinspiano@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 9/19/2002 9:31:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
RNossaman@cox.net writes:


> Subj:Re: Voicing 
> Date:9/19/2002 9:31:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:RNossaman@cox.net">RNossaman@cox.net</A>
> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
>        Ron

             I understand your premise and agree with it on the face of 
it,Meaning different board stiffnesses require differenent densities and 
weights of hammers. But I've found very little use for the Renner or Abel 
hammers in most applications. Why?  If a soundboard has good sustain 
characteristics worth a hoot a softer style hammer is all thats generally 
required to get the tone and power I'm hearing in my head which can  require 
differing amounts of lacquer to get the felt stiffness for appropriate tone.  
Other comments interspersed below.

> 
> 
> >>Do you find the Isaacs interchangeable with Renners or Abels in pianos 
> with
> >>your new boards as well as with original boards, or boards built to the
> >>original design?
> >>
> >>Ron N
> >
> >          Ron
> >         No. Renners and Abels are an untenable match in the pianos I put 
> > boards in.  I've had similar results as you in that the  Ronsen and Isaac 
> 
> > hammers are very close to where I want them. (Stwy hammers are another 
> > story but I like them.) I do less to the Ronsen than the Isaacs. A like a 
> 
> > bit of juice in the bass for bite and some of the last octave of treble 
> > hammers.
> 
> So does this mean you're using a softer hammer in your board replacements 
> than you are with original boards?
>     
>>>>>>>>>Ron
    99% of the time I'm using softer hammers on original boards and my new 
ones. I've used only one set of abels in the last two years in a Mason A 
which after complete pulverizing with needles everwhere sounded amazingly 
good. My point, and yours I believe, is Needling hammers this much for a 
board with obvoiusly excellent tonal capabilities should not be required. But 
what kind of decent piano /soundboard requires this kind of stiff hammer? 
Ones I usually don't like the sounds of. This should re-eforce your premise
> 
> 
> >    As I've said before I used to sell the Issac hammer and have hung and 
> > juiced/voiced dozens of sets. It's a great hammer for 
> > Masons,Kawais,Yamaha. I'm not as crazy about them in stnwys in general 
> > but have several sets that are the best I've ever heard. The wear factors 
> 
> > are amazing.
> 
> And are these pianos with the original soundboards? 

    >>>>>>>>>Yes Many of them
> 
> 
> 
> >     My point was consistency of his product and how there treated during 
> > manufacture. On many occasions I use to pre juice hammers I sold when I 
> > could tell they were to soft. I sent them out and didn't get complaints, 
> > but I knew the product. I'd always get complaints about too soft a set 
> > and I hated it.
> >      Does that cover it?>>Dale
> 
> And my point was and is the difference in hammer requirements between a 
> factory original board and a redesigned replacement board that is working 
> in a reasonably efficient manner. I can't tell if that covers it or not. 
> Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

      >>>>>>>>Yes I agree. And I believe it's your point that a more 
elaborately 
redesigned board vibrates more freely than most requiring a softer hammer. I 
wasn't trying to rain on your parade by saying that the Isaac hammers you 
needled down may have been pre-juiced therby negating the board freedom 
inherent in your design only  that I personally have been decieved by the 
overly prejuiced hammer myself.
>>>>>>>>Dale
> 
> 
> Ron N
> 


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/05/f7/d4/43/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--