Shellac vs. lacquer

[David Love]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment

----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Bill Ballard" <yardbird@pop.vermontel.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: July 17, 2002 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: Shellac vs. lacquer


I actually consider Brooks Ltd. Encore hammers to be the closest of =
perfect, as far as tonal development. It's nice and warm the first time =
you play the hammers set, and with a year or two's playing the tone will =
bloom without any prompting by you.

And I say tomahtoes...  Though I don't mind the tone when they are new, =
I don't really care for how they develop.  It is difficult to describe =
what we hear--there's not really a language for sound--but to me the =
tone lacks depth and range.  I'm not saying that it's a bad hammer.  I =
service many pianos with Abel hammers and I am comfortable working with =
them to get the best of what's there, it's just not my first choice.   I =
think what bothers me is how unresponsive the felt is to needles, at =
least when compared to the Renner hammers I have worked with.  =20

There are two ways in which felt can be densified: increasing the mass =
while holding steady the volume or decreasing the volume while not =
changing the mass.=20

No argument there.

Mass (and by definition, density) can be added to without increasing the =
solid's=20
volume. What can't be restored once damaged, is elasticity. That's=20
why I am concerned by anything while damages the "aliveness" of this=20
muscle.

No question that you run that risk with lacquer if not applied =
correctly.  But the use of lacquer doesn't necessarily mean a loss of =
elasticity.


>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.

Are you talking raw or reinforced? I'd be more interested if the=20
water content had say, an unaccelerated 24 hours to do its work.

I was talking about a raw hammer in order to avoid reinforcing.  The =
goal is to get denser felt.  If that can be done with controlled =
shrinkage and thereby avoid the pitfalls of lacquer I would prefer it, =
or at least I would be interested to see how it sounds.  If Steinway =
would give me a few extra hammers per set (or how about one extra) I =
would try it. =20


I would think poring it in from the sides would be just the thing to=20
give the felt mass a firm foundation. I was surprised that it seemed=20
not to make a difference in the focus of the sound on two Ls this=20
spring. It would seem eventually the strike point will have to be=20
reinforced.

Reinforcing the foundation of the hammer has worked for me but I allow =
the lacquer to creep toward the crown.  Actually, in the upper range, =
usually from about G5 to the top, I will saturate the hammer.  Going =
down I start to apply from the sides and let it creep fairly close to =
the crown at first (1/16") moving it farther and farther away as I go =
down in the bass.  In the mid range I let it creep to maybe 1/8", in the =
bass maybe 3/16".  The effect is that you can feel the firmness on a =
blow that compresses the felt down to this nether region.   I still add =
a drop or two of weak solution to the crown from the point at which I =
start applying from the sides.  But I usually iron first to see if I =
can't get what I want that way and add lacquer to the crown if I need =
something more. =20

David Love

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/ec/48/f2/25/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--