[pianotech] Abel naturals - report

[Ron Nossaman]

Dale Erwin wrote:
>    Actually I have seen much inconsistency in hammers, set to set, as is 
> witnessed by this thread and I don't believe it's all poor choice of 
> hammers for soundboard style*.

No, nothing is *ALL* anything, but hammer choice ought to 
start with what they're going on, and what's expected of the 
result, shouldn't it?


>  * So, I don't disagree that " just needs voicing" can be an excuse for 
> the choice or the hammer... 

"Just needs the right voicing" is exactly what I hear most out 
there.


>so how does the _objective evaluation_ 
> happen quantifiably in you mind.

Likely very much like it does in yours. You probably wouldn't 
put Bacons on a stock D in a large hall any more than you'd 
put Imadegawas on a chamber instrument. You'd decide, based on 
your experience, which hammer was best suited (closest) to 
what the piano and the venue need.


 >  by the way, my real bias is that over time we techs have 
been marketed
 > to believe that a good hammer _must_ be needled extensively 
to produce
 > tone and be deemed a "Good Hammer".   rubbish.

Before that, we were taught at the alter that a sweat sock on 
a stick could be turned into the ideal (perfect?) hammer by a 
months long process of applying a magic but strangely 
unquantified and largely unobtainable lacquer with the proper 
incantations and gesticulation. While some people CAN turn a 
sweat sock on a stick into a very convincing simulation of a 
working hammer, I don't think I'd consider it to be the ideal 
approach. There's rubbish, and there's great steaming piles of 
other stuff. It's a matter of degree. A little lacquer, non 
magic, can help as can a little needling. This requires a 
hammer that was somewhere in the functional range of what the 
piano and venue needed before voicing. The less voicing 
required, the better you guessed. This, I know, is what you're 
working at, and I approve wholeheartedly.

Have we disagreed here on anything at all yet?
Ron N

Incidentally, my spell checker just suggested "Megawatts" as a 
correction for "Imadegawas". <G>