[CAUT] Hammer Mass Changers / was S&S Hammers and lacquer

[Richard Brekne]

I agree.  I think there really should be little doubt that different 
levels of hammer mass will necessitate a significantly different 
response picture as seen from the pianists perspective. And I hold to 
the position that no amount of creative voicing can really compensate 
for this.  The "S" I just did was a perfect example... and the excercise 
touches a quite a bit the point that Jeff Tanner made about authenticity 
and the discussion that followed as well as this tangent to the thread.

That S had hammers that were on a 3/4 light SW curve... a bit up and 
down at that.  Key leading was actually all over the place and it was 
clear that someone had altered the original factory key leading at some 
point.  The move to a Top medium curve is a large one... but worked 
within reasonable parameters. FW's were at what Stanwood refers to as 
Maximum recommendeds, but it is at 38 grams BW. 

After initial voicing and no filing it was evident the instrument was 
going to sound wonderful... which prompted my other post on this S. And 
it turned out  really nice indeed. Clear and strong... little or no 
apparent falseness of any sort... no duplex problems... I was quite 
surprised really.  All this said... the over all response was very 
different. Much larger amounts of hammer mass are being moved around and 
it is an easy matter to sense this despite a fairly low BW.  Tho the 
over all voice <<may>> be said in some sense to be comparable to what 
the old hammers could have produced.. (assuming they had been reshaped 
and in good condition)...   I have no doubt that any pianist who could 
have been able to do a before would sense two very different instruments 
soundwise. 

I'm personally certain that the same basics here apply to the use of 
what Doug calls the composite hammer vs the non lacquered one.  When the 
pianists touch has to change to achieve any similar particular tonal 
characteristic for different instrument configurations... then for the 
pianist... the instruments <<sound different>>

Cheers
RicB





    One thing that hasn¹t been mentioned in this discussion is the geometry
    change, along with (or, more accurately, trailing a while) the
    hammer mass
    increase. This difference in hammer weight from early 20th century
    to 80s
    and thereafter is immense. This has a great impact on tone color,
    and, no
    doubt, on how hammers need to be treated. Best I can figure, the
    practice of
    complete soaking of hammers in lacquer began somewhere around the
    time of
    the 1984 action ratio change. That fact is suggestive to me. (I¹m
    not up on
    differences, if any, in belly thickness and mass and the like that
    may have
    accompanied the hammer mass increase. The ³diaphragmatic SB² patent
    came mid
    century, and may have increased mass/thickness of the central
    segments, with
    tapering around the rim).
     
    .....
     
    Regards,
    Fred Sturm
    University of New Mexico