Bill Ballard wrote: > At 12:27 AM +0200 5/12/03, Richard Brekne wrote: > >That choice seems largely to be a matter of how much hammer mass is used. The > >quality of that amount of sound is in the realm of how well the hammer can be > >voiced, and what the resolution and character of the piano allows for to begin > >with. > > I think that it's not just extra mass, but that mass which can be in > the muscle of the hammer, say the hammer felt, instead of in the bone > (say, a weight attached to the shank). As far as tone goes, the bone > is inert. The muscle, as its mass is increased, will continue to jump > off the string. An important distinction to be sure. And... as long as you mentioned it... we could really get into just how the mass of the "bone" as it were... or the shank itself contributes to the whole thing. It has a resonance of its own, and how much it flex's is a determinant in how other factors contribute. But when I said the above, I was thinking in terms of the hammer as a whole, not the shank. Do I understand you here to also be drawing up a distinction between adding leads to the core of the hammer vs just plain more hammer felt ? Cheers RicB -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC