On 30-sep-04, at 10:00, Richard Brekne wrote: > All this said... I cant say I see any reason to subscribe to the idea > that tensioned hammers will cause a soundboard to distort when > laquered hammers wont... let alone hammers that have reasonable weight > characteristics. A soundboard simply has to function as it is meant > too with in reasonable parameters... if its so screwed up that a > hammer needs to be so soft and light as to avoid driving it into some > or another form of distortion, then it seems to me the soundboard > should be fixed first. There is another thing(ee) connected to this issue, and that is the shape of the hammer and the shape of the crown. A Steinway needs a real pointed, diamond like hammer. You put that same hammer on a Bechstein and you get an ugly monster. It has to do with overtones. Bechsteins are known for their brilliant treble and their weaker bass. That's one of the reasons why in the Bechstein factory they start needling up from the beginning. Actually, they have three voicings there : a first voicing to release the tension just above the staple, a second voicing, to make cushion, and a third voicing after da 'banging machine'. Steinways always sound dull without their particular shape. > > I dismiss hammers that need lacquer for entirely other reasons. I just > dont like the way they sound. But then thats the great thing about > dissagreement eh ??? Leads to the very diversity seems to provide the > right piano for just about everyone ! Richard, I have come to the definite conclusion that talking about this issue (of lacquer versus tension) is a complete waste on both sides. If somebody really likes the sound of a lacquered hammer, than so be it. I don't know what it is or why it is but this well never settle down. I gave up on that a long time ago. We might say that there are two schools of listening and there it ends. > André Oorebeek
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC