[CAUT] hammer line

[Chris Solliday]

Jim,
no i make a smooth taper (left ot right heavy to light) of both the sorted
shanks and the strikeweight calibration. The shank sorting by weight taper
is preliminary to the strike weight calibration. As Eric has said you look
at the capo bar and wonder what are we missing in terms of evenness. Once
you get up past not 50 or 60 the largest variable factor is the shank
weight. We (Stanwood folks) used to correct that too by removing or adding
material or lead. I weighed the hammers before installation once and
compared them to the differential for the strike weight calibration and
noticed that the hammer weight, after normal preparation, was very even but
that I still had alot of variable "calibration" to do. And some of those
hour glass shaped hammers do cause people to  ponder and wonder. So it
occurred to me that the shanks must be variable and so I weighed the next
set, had an AHA moment, and have been sorting them ever since. Kudos to the
hammer manufacturers, Abel, Ronsen, Renner, steinway (yes even), for their
production of more evenly tapered hammer weights than in the past, although
the more I think about the retro calibrations I've done the more I think the
shank weight could be the largest factor there too.
You could also experiment with altering the curve and maybe solve some more
issues. Bob Marinelli has always said this is possilbe and As I recall Dan
Harteau has had good success with that.
 That said, If the capo line is bent I think the hammerline should reflect
it. And soundboard response is for me a hidden factor that I just feel I
correct for by the above described process. I try two or three even
sometimes four sample spots for strike point to get enough feedback on that.
hope that helps,
Chris Solliday
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Busby" <jim_busby at byu.edu>
To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] hammer line


> Hi Chris,
>
> Could you elaborate on "calibrating the strikeweight"? What I mean is, I
understand the sorting of shanks, but what does that do to the SW curve? Do
you alter the curve? (Put kind of a dip in it?)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jim Busby
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Chris Solliday
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:23 PM
> To: College and University Technicians
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] hammer line
>
> Jim and Alan,
>   You guys have probably thought of this but I thought I'd mention it
anyway
> because I haven't seen it as part of this thread.
> Calibrating the strikeweight from at least note 52 up before assessing the
> hammerline makes what you hear make more sense. I glue my line on straight
> with a calibrated strike weight, after sorting shanks by weight, and then
I
> seem to have less need to vary the strikeline.
>  I don't have any hard data from the way I used to do it before. I think
the
> real difference comes from the sorting of the shanks as they can vary a
> whole gram or more. Calibrating strike weight without sorting the shanks
> really makes alot of unnecessary work and can make for some funny looking
> hammers in the treble section.
> At least this is something to consider. My treble voicing issues have
become
> considerably reduced by doing it this way. I think that before I used this
> procedure I was more inclined to funkify my line than currently, not that
I
> don't. Maybe I just feel like I get a better result overall. And maybe
it's
> actually less funkification. I wish I could prove it but I wasn't looking
> for that particular improvement so I didn't do a good before and after.
> Anyway there's 2 more cents.
> Chris Solliday
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Busby" <jim_busby at byu.edu>
> To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 3:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] hammer line
>
>
> > Alan,
> >
> > This looks like what Dale Erwin does to all Bs. Did you attend that
class?
> I've always been a bit afraid of making this kind of funkyfied
hammer-line.
> You're only the second person I've known crazy enough to actually do it! I
> guess I'll try it now.
> >
> > Regards, Jim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Alan
> McCoy
> > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 1:17 PM
> > To: College and University Technicians <caut at ptg.org>
> > Subject: [CAUT] FW: hammer line
> >
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > Thought I'd share this photo. I ruined a perfectly straight hammer line
on
> a
> > 1898 S&S A. It was the most dramatic hammer line problem I have
> encountered.
> > I moved the top hammer of the first capo region about 3/16" toward the
> capo,
> > and the lowest hammer of the top capo region about 1/8" toward the capo.
> For
> > both areas I thought I'd taper the hammer line all the way to the other
> end.
> > But as it turned out I only needed to start the taper (according to my
> ear)
> > at the half-way point (G5 up to the break, and D7 down to the break).
> >
> > This area had always sounded funky and I was trying to find out why. I
> > couldn't believe how much improvement this made.
> >
> > I know that these hammers and shanks were put on about 10 or 12 years
ago,
> > but I don't know if the originals were hung straight or not. I wonder
when
> > S&S figured out they needed to grind the capo out toward the bridge.
There
> > was plenty of room on the capo to just grind it, rather than have to
> recast
> > the whole capo bar.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > -- Alan McCoy, RPT
> > Eastern Washington University
> > amccoy at mail.ewu.edu
> > 509-359-4627
> >
> >