Should read "Renner hammers are not without gyrations..." David Love ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: July 17, 2002 5:01 PM Subject: Re: Shellac vs. lacquer I've had different responses from different pianists, however, generally the response to Steinway hammers on Steinway pianos (and some others for that matter) has been overwhelmingly positive. There is a difference between NYS hammers and Renner blues in terms of tone. I won't argue that one is better than the other, but they are different. I have worked with both hammers extensively (I like Renner blues on many European pianos)and I don't find that Renner hammers are without "gyrations" to get the proper tone either. They require a fair amount preneedling in the shoulder, though not as much as other Renner hammers, and a fair amount of needling in the piano to open up the tone while keeping the attack at the proper level. I find Renner hammers, in fact, to be more physical work. Perhaps less time, but if so, not by much. Renner hammers are a higher density hammer with a different strike point shape and that makes for a different type of sound than a Steinway hammer. I happen to prefer the sound that a Steinway hammer makes on a Steinway. You do have to learn how to work with them but I find they are capable of a greater range of tonal color for whatever reason. With the variety of hammers I see on Steinways it's pretty obvious that many do not share my opinion. David Love ----- Original Message ----- From: "David M. Porritt" <dm.porritt@verizon.net> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: July 17, 2002 4:13 PM Subject: Re: Shellac vs. lacquer This has been an interesting thread. As a proponent of Renner Blues, I'm amazed at the gyrations one goes through to make NY S&S hammers useable. All the different concoctions from Collodion & ether, lacquer, plexiglas, sanding sealer, keytops and shellac (have I left any off?) to make a hammer what it's supposed to be. I've done it and it isn't fun. I find I can get the sound I want -- and more importantly the sound the pianist wants -- with the Renner Blues doing just a very small fraction of the work that's been talked about in this thread. I realize that all this has to do with our personal preferences and what we get used to. I also know there's no right or wrong about this. I just prefer hanging Renners and taking an hour or less to make them what I want. I'm probably just lazy! dave *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 7/17/02 at 3:40 PM David Love wrote: >Bill: > >I am still inclined to opt for the higher density explanation. When you >compare a NY Steinway hammer to a Renner or Abel hammer, it seems unlikely >that you would find a different in the stiffness of the individual fibers >accounting for their tonal difference. When inserting a single needle into >each hammer it seems that the difference in felt density is evident. Abel >and Renner achieve that difference through the use of higher density felt >to >begin with, perhaps, plus the application of heat during the manufacturing >process which shrinks the felt down to a denser mass. You can see this >when >you needle the hammers and the hammer expands. You can also achieve a >louder or brighter tone on one of these hammers by soaking the hammer with >acetone. Presumably this doesn't stiffen the fibers, but causes some kind >of shrinkage which, again, makes the hammer more dense. Moreover, you can >brighten the tone in a NY Steinway hammer by ironing the felt. It is hard >to imagine how this would stiffen the individual fibers. It seems more >likely that it compacts the felt at the crown: more density equals brighter >sound. > >The fact that certain hardeners "break down" seems more a function of how >deeply the hardener penetrates. If it lies on the surface or crown of the >hammer, then as the surface wears away with playing so does the hardened >felt. This process is complicated by the fact that the same playing that >wears away the densified felt also packs the felt down underneath. So >sometimes a little bit of hardening of the crown is a nice temporary >measure >until the hardener is worn through and the natural compacting of the felt >takes over. > >It seems that what many of us are looking for is a hammer which is somewhat >more dense than a NY Steinway hammer and somewhat less dense than a Renner >or Abel hammer. One interesting experiment might be to take a NY Steinway >hammer, infuse it with an alcohol and water solution and throw it into the >drier for an hour to see if that doesn't brighten it up. I, for one, would >be happy to come up with a way to get a NYS style hammer more dense without >lacquer. Lacquer is tricky and unforgiving in some ways. I find that when >trying to build up the hammer from scratch it is important to select the >right solution for the first application. Since densifying the felt >usually >needs to be done at the core of the hammer where the felt is already the >most dense, applications of lacquer tend to seal the felt from further >penetration by subsequent applications. You don't get the same effect by >multiple applications of weak solution as you do from a single application >of the right solution. The lacquer has a tendency to build up outside the >core. Rather than a graduated density, which I think is desirable, you can >end up with a hammer that is hard on the perimeter but not necessarily at >the core. Applying lacquer from the side of the hammer helps in this >respect. On the other side, you can overdo it and apply to heavy a >solution >which can glue everything together and rob the hammer of necessary >resilience. > >David Love > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Bill Ballard" <yardbird@pop.vermontel.net> >To: <pianotech@ptg.org> >Sent: July 16, 2002 9:21 PM >Subject: Re: Shellac vs. lacquer > > >As I understand it, reinforcers do three things, one after the other >depending on the dose. First they coat the fibers to slow them down, >thus dampening their elasticity. Next they glue adjacent fibers >together, where these are close enough to have their gap bridged by >the resin, again hobbling the felt mass's natural elasticity. And >third, and most disastrous, they fill in the air space within the >felt mass. > >I think David, we have a similar vision of what's happening inside >the felt mass. I don't think that the density of the hammer changes >significantly until the dosage has done the first two stages, and is >turning what used air space into solid resin. That's when the >compressibility is non-existent. (There is no air space in which the >compression can occur.) In the first two stages, I don't think the >amount of solids is enough to affect the density of the felt mass. >But the flexibility of the felt mass is nevertheless affected. >Coating the fibers, and gluing them together at point of adjacency >will definitely stiffen the felt mass, requiring more force to get it >to compress. > >All this talk of embalming hammers would lead one to wonder why >anyone would ever want to dope a crown. Well, with NY Steinway >hammers, unless your pianist likes their piano warm and fuzzy, it's >inevitable. You can firm up the shoulders all you want, even >including under the strike point. But the hammer and the string are a >pair of springs, and the best sound comes when the reach their >maximum deformation simultaneously. Power and projection from a NY >Steinway hammer will not emerge until the strikepoint fibers have >been stiffened (and their bending under force slowed). And if I'm >obliged to stiffen, I'd like to stiffening resin to have its own >elasticity to contribute to the hammer/string event. _____________________________ David M. Porritt dporritt@mail.smu.edu Meadows School of the Arts Southern Methodist University Dallas, TX 75275 _____________________________
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC