Parting point was Evidence of overlacquered hammers

[David Ilvedson]

So all David had to do was add IMHO to his post....I'd say that goes without saying...

David I.



----- Original message ---------------------------------------->
From: Richard Brekne <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no>
To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
Received: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 05:42:32 +0100
Subject: Parting point was Evidence of overlacquered hammers

>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
>> 
>>
>_______________________________________________
>pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives