I thought I sent a correction on that, maybe I sent it to myself by mistake. Of course, you are right. I meant 7/32". David Love davidlovepianos@earthlink.net > [Original Message] > From: Greg Newell <gnewell@ameritech.net> > To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>; <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net> > Date: 5/12/2003 10:49:13 AM > Subject: RE: hammer mass (was Wurzen felt) > > David, > Not to be too pickyune but I do hope you meant a 7/32" shank and=20 > not 7/16". > > Greg > > > > At 01:32 PM 5/12/2003, you wrote: > > >Yes, it seems that it is not a pure test. It was interesting, however, to > >observe the difference. It brings something else to mind, which is what > >happens when, say, a new action with 7/16" shanks is combined with a hammer > >weight from the original design which utilized 3/16" shanks and of a > >different species of wood. My own experience does suggest that a light > >hammer on a 3/16" maple shank does not sound the same as that same hammer > >on a hex 7/16" shank made of hornbeam. > > > >David Love > >davidlovepianos@earthlink.net > > Greg Newell > Greg's piano Fort=E9 > mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net=20
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC