I don't think I'd go so far as to say that a set that requires lacquer for more than the top octave is defective, but I agree that it would be nice to get them firm enough that lacquer was unnecessary without the density going so far that the hammers were strident out of the box--consistently, I should add. Moreover, it would be nice to be able to order hammers with a specified density, thickness over the core, etc. (or whatever criteria would be used) for each section. How that would work in production, I don't really know. And, to be honest, I'm not sure what my order would look like even if it were possible. David Love davidlovepianos@earthlink.net ----- Original Message ----- From: To: pianotech@ptg.org Sent: 10/5/2003 12:52:56 PM Subject: Re: RC vs CC again (was Re: compression ridges) In a message dated 9/29/2003 10:16:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hufford1@airmail.net writes: Robin wrote Also, again only one man's opinion, this is the most efficient possible use of a hammer assembly, and, I think, the more Conventional 90 degree installation is substantially less efficient. The point, though, that I tried to make, is that I can't agree that the numerous tonebuilding and strungback repair techniques available to technicians cannot correct this problem where there is one. They can. Any set of hammers that has to be lacquered any more than in the last octave or so, is intrinsically a defective set, in my opinion and I place little store in the techniques of "voicing up" or "down " even though I have learned them myself at a prominent factory or in seminars here or there where this whole process has been elevated into a kind of professional art and skill which I think is complete nonsense technically and, fundamentally, a fraud. This entire process, coupled with the vastly larger heavier hammer frequently found on new American pianos,and the large, monstrous shanks lets this area stand out first as slightly different on some new pianos in some cases. But, it is a big mistake, in my opinion, to jump on this and immediately conclude the soundboard has failed which is a most common assumption made here. Hi Robin I'm a bit confused as to the comments regarding voicing up or down as an art being a fraud. Perhaps you'd care to clarify this. Are you saying that you don't voice hammers? If so then how else are tonal problems corrected in your practice? I strongly disagree with the comment about lacquering hammers. This method when used on workable felted hammers requires only enough solution to stiffen the spring rate of the hammer felt and not enough to keep them from being carefully needled for small tonal adjustments. If your referring to the over juicing of hammers till they become petrified then I can quite agree with you. But I've juiced countless sets of hammers and the good ones will be difficult to tell that any kind of juice has been applied when needles are inserted. A workable hammer by my definition is one that recks little juice or needling to get the proper tonal results. The more a set of hammers leans to either extreme, either too stiff or not stiff enough, the less tonally satisfying the outcome can be. Voicing stability is also often compromised in a too stiff hammer and too soft may remain puffy sounding, well forever. I certainly agree that the use of too heavy of hammers in many American and other pianos too be a poor idea especially in the killer regions. Remedies in this area can too often be poor hammer placement missing the strike line. Simple a modifications of certain portions of the strike line can render a substantial improvement in tone. Also as I'm sure you know many pianos are very sensitive to too much weight and a little dieting in the weight dept. goes along way to a better sound. Regards--Dale Erwin
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC