Hammers and Stanwood

[Newton Hunt]

>  Subject: Hammers and Stanwood
>     Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 23:26:30 +0100
>     From: Richard Brekne <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no>
>  Reply-To pianotech@ptg.org
>       To: PTG <pianotech@ptg.org>
>  
> 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

Hi David,

Next time I will watch my fingers closer.

I have an aversion to solving piano problems by changing the piano
when the problem is it's environment.  I also thought that a
reasonable improvement by heavier hammers will not solve the problem
of "reach" or "projection" since the space seems to have been tailored
for no reverb or reflection of sound.

Just my opinion considering his description of the problem.

THank you for expressing your opinion as well.  

You may well be right.

Thank you for your note.

My best to the family.

		Newton