Hammer weight

[stanwood]

Hartman rote:

>It's also true that as the hammer mass is increased a point will be reach
>when the hammer contact with the string will last longer than the string's
>fundamental effectively damping the string.

This is why the heavier the hammer the harder it must be.  A harder hammer
will rebound more quickly than a lighter hammer thereby cancelling out the
fact that the higher weight causes it to rebound more slowly, (provided that
resiliency is maintained).  The net result is that the tone of the
instrument is the same but the heavier hammer yeilds more tonal energy.

It's hard to make qualitative judgement about tonal energy.  Pianos with
high or low tonal energy can sound the same.   The most convincing evidence
is from looking at microphone signal strength in pianos with light and heavy
hammers.  There is no question that the most energy comes out of a hammer
weights that yeild strike weights in the full projection zone.

>If a heavier hammer is opted for then the action leverage will have to be
>less.

I think you mean the strike ratio should be less.  Lower strike ratio means
higher leverage.

Stanwood