Hammers: was Re: RC vs CC again (was Re: compression ridges)

[David Love]

I don't think I'd go so far as to say that a set that requires lacquer for
more than the top octave is defective, but I agree that it would be nice to
get them firm enough that lacquer was unnecessary without the density going
so far that the hammers were strident out of the box--consistently, I
should add.  Moreover, it would be nice to be able to order hammers with a
specified density, thickness over the core, etc. (or whatever criteria
would be used) for each section.  How that would work in production, I
don't really know.  And, to be honest, I'm not sure what my order would
look like even if it were possible.  
 
David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: 
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Sent: 10/5/2003 12:52:56 PM 
Subject: Re: RC vs CC again (was Re: compression ridges)


In a message dated 9/29/2003 10:16:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
hufford1@airmail.net writes:

      Robin wrote
  Also, again only one man's opinion, this is the
most efficient possible use of a hammer assembly, and, I think, the more
Conventional 90 degree installation is substantially less efficient.
     The point, though, that I tried to make, is that I can't agree that the
numerous tonebuilding and strungback repair techniques available to
technicians cannot correct this problem where there is one.  They can.
     Any set of hammers that has to be lacquered any more than in the last
octave or so, is intrinsically a defective set, in my opinion and I place
little store in the techniques of "voicing up" or "down " even though I have
learned them myself at a prominent  factory or in seminars here or there
where this whole process has been elevated into a kind of professional art
and skill which I think is complete nonsense technically and, fundamentally,
a fraud.    This entire process, coupled with the vastly larger heavier
hammer frequently found on new American pianos,and the large, monstrous
shanks lets this area stand out first as slightly different on some new
pianos in some cases.  But, it is a big mistake, in my opinion, to jump on
this and immediately conclude the soundboard has failed which is a most
common assumption made here.
    
        Hi Robin
    I'm a bit confused as to the comments regarding voicing up or down as
an art being a fraud. Perhaps you'd care to clarify this. Are you saying
that you don't voice hammers? If so then how else are tonal problems
corrected in your practice? I strongly disagree with the comment about
lacquering hammers. This method when used on workable felted hammers
requires only enough solution to stiffen the spring rate of the hammer felt
and not enough to keep them from being carefully needled for small tonal
adjustments. If your referring to the over juicing of hammers till they
become petrified then I can quite agree with you. But I've juiced countless
sets of hammers and the good ones will be difficult to tell that any kind
of juice has been applied when needles are inserted.
     A workable hammer by my definition is one that recks little juice or
needling to get the proper tonal results. The more a set of hammers leans
to either extreme, either too stiff or not stiff enough, the less tonally
satisfying the outcome can be. Voicing stability is also often compromised
in a too stiff hammer and too soft may remain puffy sounding, well forever.
  I certainly agree that the use of too heavy of hammers in many American
and other pianos too be a poor idea especially in the killer regions.
Remedies in this area can too often be poor hammer placement missing the
strike line. Simple a modifications of certain portions of the strike line
can render a substantial improvement in tone. Also as I'm sure you know
many pianos are very sensitive to too much weight and a little dieting in
the weight dept. goes along way to a better sound.
  Regards--Dale Erwin