More CC vs RC questions was RE: Killer Octave & Pitch Raise

[David Love]

I'm totally convinced that hammer matching is important.  You might
consider that the types of pianos you are working on are similar in many
respects, i.e., mostly CC boards.  Since any medium hardness hammer can
be manipulated up or down to a degree and therefore in most cases can be
made to fit well within a certain narrow spectrum of SB designs it may
seem that one good hammer is all you need.  Further analysis of your end
result, however, would probably show differences in hammer density
achieved by the use of needles.  In the case of RC&S boards or boards
with higher spring rates than normal CC boards or other features the
might effect transfer of energy, different hammers may be appropriate
for different boards.  Mass and density seem to both be important
considerations.  Not unlike the, until more recently, foreign concept of
matching hammer weight to leverage analysis (as you are well aware), the
time for a serious consideration of matching hammer mass and density to
soundboard design seems in order.  

David Love
davidlovepianos@comcast.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On
Behalf Of Richard Brekne
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 12:01 PM
To: Newtonburg
Subject: More CC vs RC questions was RE: Killer Octave & Pitch Raise

I really think that this whole buisness of matching hammers to 
soundboards is rather overstated. We were here just a couple months back

with old pianos with so called weak soundboards.  Of course there are 
extremities... but there are certainly many quality hammers that in the 
hands of a compentent enough voicer can bring out the very best in an 
instrument... one way or another.  I noticed that Abel Select hammers 
were cited as the hammer best for one of the instruments used along this

track. Given the fact that it seemed evident that the assessed problem 
was that other hammers were too hard I found this very odd. Abel Select,

at least what we get under that name, are anything but very soft 
hammers, and certainly harder then the Wurzen pressed by Renner, 
certainly harder then Ronsens I've had the opportunity to use, and way 
harder then the NY Steinway hammers I've run into. That said... not a 
single one of the hammers mentioned are not more then workable for any 
decent piano IMHO.  Let me put it this way..... you put any good piano, 
and any of the mentioned set of hammers, and Andre (or any voicer of his

calibre) in the same room for a couple days..... I dont think I need say

any more.

No doubt some systems require more or less from the hammer side of the 
whole equation. That goes without saying.

Cheers
RicB


Well I meant that more as a question than a statement.  One thing that
does interest me is how CC vs RC&S methods influence, either in design
or execution, the relationship between mass and spring rate and how that
might relate to proper hammer matching.  Which system,  for example,
tends to have a thicker panel?  It seems that the CC panel is generally
thicker in the center and tapered toward the rim whereas the RC&S panel
is slightly thinner and more uniform in thickness (except maybe around
the bass perimeter).  Is that correct?  Might not the difference in mass
distribution of the CC panel explain differences in hammer matching and
potentially some tonal differences?  It seems that the CC panel requires
a much denser and possibly less flexible hammer than the RC&S board (at
least in my experience).  Whether the tone production potential between
the two with appropriate hammers is net/net, is something I can't really
answer but do wonder about.  The subject might point to some
differences.
 



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