[CAUT] hammer line

[Chris Solliday]

right on Ed, this is what is meant by the "differential." I must admit that
I sometimes omit the spreadsheet and line them up in my parts box and just
directly add the hammer weight to the shamk weight on my cardboard liner.
The small amount of shank that is removed after hanging is negligible and
relatively consistent. It is, I believe, the variant density of the wood in
the shank that causes the variations. I do find a wider spread than you
sometimes, although I do also use 1.7 as an average. As much as a whole gram
difference in adjacent hammers in the original parts box makes a big
difference in treble voicing if one just grabs them out of the box. As I
have posted a few months ago I also channel shanks and I sort them before
and after that process as well.
Chris Solliday
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Sutton" <ed440 at mindspring.com>
To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] hammer line


> Here's my approach (similar to Chris's, I think...maybe?).
> After boring and shaping I weigh the hammers.
> Then I weigh the shanks (as levers).
> Let's say the median shank weight is 1.7gr, and they range from 1.4 to 2
> grams.
> I make a spread sheet that adds the hammer weights to 1.7gr. (column A)
> >From this I calculate the ideal strikeweight continuity. (column B)
> Then I subtract  column A from column B, which gives a list of corrections
> needed.
> Now, by substituting the odd weighted shanks for the 1.7gr shanks, I can
> make a lot of +/- 0.1,0.2,0.3 gram corrections.
> With a bit of luck I can hang the top 20 hammers and make almost no weight
> changes to the hammer heads.
> Ed Sutton
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Chris Solliday" <csolliday at rcn.com>
> To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] hammer line
>
>
> > 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
> >> >
> >> >