Parting point was Evidence of overlacquered hammers

[Richard Brekne]

All very well stated and fine enough

None of which, can be  used to justify the below quotes which turned the 
subject in the direction of a lacquer vs tension hammer discussion. 
These two and other statements pretty clearly make the claim that there 
are some pianos in which soft hammers that need to be lacquered are 
clearly the best choice... will <<sound better>>.

There simply is no grounds for making such a claim. To begin with what 
<<sounds better>> is a matter of taste to begin with, Secondly the 
experienced voicer knows how to accomplish this very well, regardless of 
hammer types, resultling differences not matters of better or worse but 
varying tastes. Thirdly... the allusions to magic work both ways here... 
A crappy soundboard will indeed sound crappy regardless... a point I 
made very early on. Lastly.. and just for order... the only thing 
magical about Andres voicing is the fact that he is exceedingly good at it.

Taxi is on the way... its 5:30 am... and I am out of here !!

Thanks one an all for the well  wishes to Greece... Its my wifes 50th 
birthday present... A welcome break from the rain and cold in Bergen

Cheers
RicB


"The ease with
which the board can be overdriven or the terminations stretched beyond
their limit will render such a hammer most likely too hard to control
and one will always be fighting a harsh and distorted tone.  In this
case a softer, unheated and lighter hammer may be the best choice.
Those types of hammers may need some firming up of the felt in order to
achieve the optimum density and an application of lacquer or the
hardener of your choice works quite well.  "

"Frequently that necessitates using a hammer that is softer than you
might ordinarily use and building up the density just short of the point
where the piano can handle it."


Ron Nossaman wrote:
> 
>> The soundboard
>> itself has absolutely no possibiliy to add any partials to the strings
>> spectrum (except the short shock spectrum caused by the hammer impact) 
>> and
>> acts only as an amplifier and filter. But the oscillator is the string.
> 
> 
> No one said the soundboard adds partials that the string scale and 
> hammer combination don't generate.  It does, however, FILTER (and 
> therefor limit) what the string scale and hammer combination potentially 
> generate, and so sets the upper limit of what the string scale and 
> hammer combination can produce in perceived tone qualities. Magic 
> scaling, miraculous hammers, and walk on water voicing techniques will 
> still sound relatively crappy on a crappy soundboard design. The best 
> Shinola in the world won't significantly enhance the luster of low grade 
> fecal material - marketing aside.
> 
> The string scale is, granted, the basis of the system. The soundboard 
> should ideally be, though seldom is, designed to accommodate the string 
> scale, with consideration given to the type of hammer that is expected 
> to be used with the system. Each component of string scale, soundboard 
> design, and hammer choice has meaning in the finished product, and the 
> hammer is the very last consideration in the mix, since it is going to 
> be able to deliver no more than the string scale and soundboard 
> combination have to give, at the very best.
> 
> But that's just the opinion of a guy who designs string scales and the 
> soundboards to go with them.
> 
> Ron N
> 
>