---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 4/23/2004 8:04:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no writes:
The thing is that hardening... just about no matter how you go about
doing it, works to the detriment of felts natural resiliancy.
>> OK Ric ,I'll bite. Yes in theory I guess that's true but I think the real
problem & thus misconception & revulsion of lacquers as voicing solution comes
from A tooo soft hammer & toooo much lacquer(or whatever) in attempt to
rectify a manufacturing problem.
David
Stanwood has done some interesting research into that aspect of this
whole subject matter and has a very interesting lecture with some very
illustrative high magnification photos.
>> I would find this interesting as I do of most the things Dave expolres
but it wouldn't suddenly change may philosophy of tone & voicing.
You will harden up the hammers with laquer... and depending on what is
used on what you can impart a different kind of <<resiliancy>> from the
new combined felt/laquer material that results.
>>Resielency is resiliency
But it will impart a
different kind of sound quality then natural felt resiliency will,
Yes & no. Natural felt resiency.?? Giant can O- definition worms.
First lets clear something up for perspectives & definitions sake. No one
who is a serious student of voicing wants a hammer that is to soft or to hard.
Or under resilient or over resilient? We all want Goldilocks porridge & piano
hamrs to be juuuusst right. If you have a Renner hammer that's a bit to soft
&,occasionly it happens, what will you do? You file iron& juice & then play
in time.
If I get a Ronsen ,Stwy ,Isaac hammrs that a bit to hard what do I do?
I needle, reshape & a little fine filing & play in time
My point is that if hammers are very close to a desired stiffness & require
modest efforts of either technique to achieve desired results then how far
apart are we in our definition of traditional voicing techniques, or the final
auditory outcome. How far on our thinking of resilience. Not very. So the sound
are not going to be very different.
On the other hand If I have more natural felt resilience left in the
hammer without over densification & extra heat then which hamrs actually more
resilience? Once again define resilence.
The one requiring 50 strokes of needles per side or the hmr that requires
only 6 to 8 or perhaps a light solution of juice to stiffen the felt.? You
decide. I've already voted & my elbow & ears are happy. I usaully get 90% of
what I want tonally with zero needles.
Here to me is the magic & that is that what we all actually want & must
have for tone production is limited resielence not maximium resilence. Our
semantics on this subject are kinda screwed up or at least I am.
I haven't even gotten to "Traditional" yet but I'm guessin you can read it
be between the lines. Maybe later............
which
you may or may not find pleasing. Voicing is a hugely subjective... one
of the most subjective things in our buisness.
>>>To this I can quite agree. Also its' what we get comfortable with & what
our tonal preferences are. I bet most avid voicers aren't far apart in what
they call great tone.
Again... try out different approaches and find what you personally like
best. We all in the end impart some of our own creativity to the
instruments we work on, and thats good.... yeilds variety which in turn
insures there is something for everyone out there.
>. Yeah Man!!
As for me... I'll put up a fine traditional voiced hammer against
anything else out there with 100% clear confidence.
Me too Ric 100%
"Traditon" Tevia
Happy saturday
Dale
Erwins Pianos Restorations
4721 Parker Rd.
Modesto, Ca 95357
209-577-8397
Rebuilt Steinway , Mason &Hamlin Sales
www.Erwinspiano.com
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/c8/c2/ab/e2/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC