Lacquer fight! Lacquer fight!

[Richard Brekne]

Erwinspiano@aol.com wrote:

>
> > _   >> Please define power_
> >
> Difficult to define precisely... but it is a more encompasing concept
> then loudness.... I get the sensation that it sort of like what happens
> when you add mass to a hammer and dont change anything else. You are not
> really making the hammer louder and brighter as you are making it louder
> and bigger.  Sorry if words fail me here... but the effects are
> different, and I am certainly not the only one to notice.
>  
>    *>>Yes  I have done  experiments as weel & nticed this. I think it 
> get louder and bigger because of the increase in the fundamental 
> frequency becoming more dominant, With adding weight all the other 
> higher parials seem to shift down  in the spectrum but still are 
> carried by farther due to the stonger fundamsntal.*
>
Yes... this echos Issacs phrasing and I find myself liking this 
description. Seems to fit well what I experience.  I dont find that same 
kind of thing happening using the lacqure approach.... which I dont 
really think should suprise anyone because in reality you are comming 
towards that median tone picture from the opposite direction. 

Another thing that would have to be difficult for the lacquer voicer to 
imitate is getting the lacquer to truly build up most at the bottom, 
then less and less concentrations the farther out you go towards the 
surface.  If you dont mangage this... then this would right off seem to 
explain part of the differences in sound created from the two approaches 
I would think.  But even so... you would be starting off with a soft 
hammer which strong fundemental only due to the softness muffling the 
higher partials. Hardening isnt really going to increase the power that 
the fundemental has in driving the whole partial spectra. It would seem 
to me that that is a function mostly of what kind of internal tensions 
you can release and concentrate at the striking point and directly 
below.... I mean either a hammer has that or it doesnt.  That at least 
is how I envision it... and seems to fit well with how I experience the 
method.  I never could... and never have heard another, manage to get 
that same kind of bloom.


>
> ...... snip


> And just how is this pressure in conflict with the felting process in
> general.
>   >* It is in conlict only in extremes & that has always been my 
> objection.  Where I & many others take issue is that having to needle 
> any hammer 100 times  as counter productive & intuitive to the way 
> felt is made as well as hammers & tone*



Well since we dont get into the extremes with these hammers.. ( or 
certainly not what I would term extremes ) then we are not experiencing 
any conflict with the felting process.  These hammers do not require 100 
stabs on each shoulder... no where near that.... and whats more it is 
not a problem to drive needles in deep.  I can use a 3 needled tool set 
at 7 mm now and run through most of the larger hammers... up to about 
number 50 or so... in about 45 minutes... and I am slow. You should see 
Andre... and HE has a bad back ! :) ... well sort off. 

Typically we are looking at about 15 - 20 jabs.

As for why to do this visa vi going the other way.... well we are going 
to obviously have a hard time arriving at a carefull state of agreement 
there.  But let me just say that I and many besides me notice a 
difference in the general tonal characterisitics achieved by the two 
methods.  I will be the first to admit that both have their own kind of 
charm. That said... I personally prefer the sound of needled hammers 
when these are of fine enough quality off the production line.

Neither do I see anything about needling hammers that is counter 
productive nor counter intuitive, nor for that matter at odds with the 
felting process.  And to be honest... if I WAS to point out what method 
seemed at odds with the felting process... I dont really see what the 
additions of lacquer has possibly in common with the felting of wool 
fibers.  But thats not really a matter I care to press much.

Again tho... we are debating which process is better... against my will, 
and I am only willing to go so far as to state my own preferences in 
this regard, and keep to some basic few facts about what happens when.  
None of this is what I really brought the subject up for.   I wanted to 
shed light on whether or not it had become too easy for too many techs 
to just lean on the juice bottle too much instead of coming to terms 
with learning how to voice traditionally.... inspite of whatever end 
proceedure the tech ends up choosing.

I am sure you are not suggesting that technicians abandon the 
traditional voicing methods and tensioned hammers  completely.

CHeers
RicB


btw...f rom your description of the latest trends in the Ronsen 
Factory... I might have to sample a set one of these days.  They do 
sound rather interesting. !