Hammers and Stanwood

[Robert Scott Kuhn]

While I would not disagree that it is a good thing to have Strike Weights in
the high zone in the bass simply because they do tend to put more energy
into the fundamental (or at least the lower partials), I personally don't
believe it is a good thing higher up in the scale.  Particularly as you get
into octave 4 and above.  Around octave 4 the hammer/string contact time
becomes significant relative to the wave coming back from the agraffe.  A
higher SW brings this point farther down in the scale.  I prefer medium to
low in this section of the piano.

I think another benefit of lower strike weights at the very top end is that
you will get a bit less contact noise or knock from the hammer/shank
assembly hitting the string.

It certainly helps to use the sprung whippens in the case where you are
making such a dramatic shift from high zone in the bass to low zone at the
top.

Scott Kuhn

----- Original Message -----
From: David Stanwood <dstanwood@hotmail.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Hammers and Stanwood


> Richard,
>
> Can't really say much about your hammers without some data...
>
> What have you got for Strike Weights?
>
> C,C# samples at least please...
>
> Had a similar situation  recently with a Steinway B.
>
> Went from mid medium zone Strike Weights to mid full zone Strike Weights.
> The sound got a little duller and some judicious hardening and shaping put
> things in order.  The net result was to bring the tone up several notchs.
> Bigger fuller nicer sound...broader spectrum of dynamics.
>
> Please measure your strike weight and share your data with us.  If you
send
> it to me I'd be glad to graph it and put it on my web site so we can all
> look at what your talking about...
>
> I firmly believe that we ALL should be looking at strike weights and
hammer
> weights as a matter of course.  I am not alone in the knowledge that the
> foundation of a wel set up action is setting strike weights to a specified
> level an with consistency from note to note.  Not only is it worth the
time
> and effort but we can CHARGE for the service and our clients will NOTICE
the
> difference....
>
> Looking forward to your data.
>
> David Stanwood
>
> >From: Richard Brekne <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no>
> >Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org
> >To: PTG <pianotech@ptg.org>
> >Subject: Hammers and Stanwood
> >Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 23:26:30 +0100
> >
> >Recent thread about Pathetic Monsters.. got me thinking about
> >something. In Davids reply to Terry he mentions some of his
> >thinking about which hammer strike weight ranges are generally
> >appropriate for some varying locations / instruments.
> >
> >I have a roughly 2 meter long Bluthner.. not very old... but
> >needs new hammers. Presently it is in a fairly large classroom
> >that has a lot of carpeting and ceiling mounted sound absorbers.
> >The sound of this instrument is like well.... swallowed up. It
> >just doesnt project. Sustain could be a bit better as well. In a
> >small practice room where this was previously placed it was
> >overwhelmingly "big" in sound.
> >
> >It has a set of 3 time reshaped standard catalouge Able heads. I
> >am wondering what kind of strikeweights / hammer size would be
> >suitable for a room that is so...... damped soundwise as a room
> >with lots of carpeting and the like would be.  How does one go
> >about "prejudging" such a choice ?
> >
> >--
> >Richard Brekne
> >RPT, N.P.T.F.
> >Bergen, Norway
> >mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>