Greetings, Inre my recommendation for using 5:1 thinned lacquer and being conservative, Dale and Bill have responded with the "other side". I sorta agree, but want to offer a little more of my own rationale. Dale said: Yes, but on the other hand if the hammers are really too soft the 5 to 1- will not get the hammer felt stiff enough & trying to switch to a thicker solution (3-1) solution later will only encounter the blocking effect of the first application & the 3-1 to 1 can't get in as far as it needs to go. I rather suggest experimenting on only a few hammers at a time in different registers to determine the appropriate remedy. I like to stick a single needle in various hammers as a probe to get a feel of the inherent stiffness or lack of it. If you call the mixture wrong on one at least you didn't whole sale treat em all & then say oops I shoulnda done that!. << By beginning my doping on the shoulders at 9:00 and 3:00, (a full eyedropper full on each one), I leave a "V-shaped" area under the string with very little lacquer in it. You can observe this with some colored lacquer on a scrap Steinway Hammer. The wicking effect takes the fluid in farthest in at the middle, forming a half-moon shape and usually reaching the core wood right at its tip. When this happens from both sides, the center of the hammer ends up drenched, with a graduated amount of hardener rising above it to the contact point, ( well soaked at the top of the underfelt and none at all on the surface where the string will be contacted). I like to let the hammers get played after this, and often, they will begin to develop a brilliance and range. If the player simply doesn't like the softness, or the hammers need more brilliance right off, then I add more lacquer from higher up on the shoulder, something like half an eyedropper at 10:30 and 1:30 positions. This seems to avoid the "blocking" of the earlier application, and usually begins to create much more dramatic results. It also leaves still a little untreated felt at the very surface and this is what I want. The factory method of soaking from the top down can make for a very nice sound, (once you needle the crashy sound out of a percentage of hammers thus treated). However, I find that the sound is not durable, and with moderate to heavy play, the sound becomes harsh. When needling the harshness out, I feel like I begin to lose tonal range. Bill writes: << I remember Frank Hansen (well-known piano tech in the NE for the last sixty years) saying that as far as reinforcing hammers, you really only had one pass to get it right. Shoulder or crown, you really wanted the hardness on the inside instead of the outer layers. After the initial pass, further waves of reinforcing wouldn't flow through the felt mass as easily, and thus not as far. So you judged the initial doping based on the sound (and feel) of the hammers, and how a limited set of samples (say, 1, 20, 40, 64 and 88) would respond to a given strength of lacquer. The more passes you have to make, the more the permeability of the felt becomes a factor in where the reinforcer ends up or whether it does you any good. >> Beginning on the shoulders allows successive treatments to travel inward. It is also easy to dope the sides of the hammer if necessary. I have, in the past, tried using just thinner on the crown, and then adding a heavy lacquer mix to the shoulders, thinking that the thinner would prevent the hardener from migrating into the zone below the strike point. It worked, but now I just adjust how much to add on the sides in the initial treatment. One thing I have accepted is that the center of the Steinway hammer, right above the core wood, must be completely soaked and hard as a rock. The tonal range is then determined by the condition of the felt above that bottom 30% of the hammer. Regards, Ed Foote RPT http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC