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

[Arnold Duin]

Hello David,

I  also agree that hammer matching is important but that is always the 
case. You can can get every hammer, when you work on it, to a certain 
level to get the most out of a piano but sometimes you need another 
hammer  whith other characteristics to get an ever better result. An 
Bosendorfer needs another approach then a Steinway.  My point is you 
have to something to work on and that is given by the soundboard etc. 
You can get a better result by using the right hammer but I don't think 
they are  the determinant factor.

Arnold


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos@comcast.net>
To: "'Pianotech'" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:45 PM
Subject: RE: More CC vs RC questions was RE: Killer Octave & Pitch 
Raise


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