I’m not intentionally picking on you—I take issue with a lot of what a lot of people write I just usually don’t bother to respond. Here I am wondering why you think it would be ridiculous to use hammers with weights approximating the originals. That’s a pretty strong statement and I figure you must have a good reason for making it. I’d like to learn more about what that reason might be. Were I putting hammers on this piano their numbers across the scale would be pretty close to the “before” set. But I was looking at the numbers for the upper tenor and treble hammers in particular. More mass in upper end hammers tends to create more “hammer knock” and less musical tone. Lower down hammer knock is a non-issue and other factors take over; the softer hammers I prefer must have less mass or they can sound some dull; get some of the mass out and the piano comes alive. But there is some leeway. Up in the high tenor and treble, however, hammer mass is much more critical and excessive mass is a real negative. Those hammers need to be able to get away from the strings fast; heavier hammers can’t do that. I recently looked at a still-under-warranty 7’ grand (approximately) that was then on its second set of factory hammers. In both cases—first the originals, and now the replacements—the hammers in the upper tenor and treble were more massive than they should have been. The voice in the upper third of the compass is “knocky” and both harsh and dull at the same time. (Pretty much like the voice of the originals.) While some folks might want the harsh, distorted sound coming from these hammers and this piano the owner does not. The voicers (both factory and local) were in the process of “shaping” them and “juicing them up.” This, of course, has been making the problem worse, not better. The upper end hammers are too heavy. And now, with their increasingly blunt shape and the added lacquer they don’t have much bounce left in them; they are not getting away from the strings fast enough. Lacquering them more—even saturating them with the stuff!—will not alter this. The only solution is to get some of the mass out of them and give them back the resiliency that they need to do their jobs. My recommendation was (is) to replace the hammers with something other than those supplied by the factory but that’s an idea that will never fly. So the cycle will repeat itself until the owner gets fed up with the piano and replaces it with another brand. Too bad, it’s fundamentally a good piano. Anyway, there are good reasons why those early hammers worked so well. One of these being that there was not a lot of mass involved. ddf Delwin D Fandrich Piano Design & Fabrication 620 South Tower Avenue Centralia, Washington 98531 USA del at fandrichpiano.com ddfandrich at gmail.com Phone 360.736.7563 From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Dale Erwin Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 8:08 AM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Fwd: Steinway sound-Hammer weights Ok, It does seem that frequently you take issue with things I say..... so show me some numbers that look good to you Del. Personally,...I like the sound of a bit more weight. Dale S. Erwin <http://www.Erwinspiano.com> www.Erwinspiano.com Custom restoration Ronsen Piano hammers Join the Weickert felt Revolution 209-577-8397 209-985-0990 -----Original Message----- From: Delwin D Fandrich <del at fandrichpiano.com> To: caut at ptg.org Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 7:42 am Subject: Re: [CAUT] Fwd: Steinway sound-Hammer weights I’m curious; you say you would not go “that light. It’s ridiculous.” Why ridiculous? I’ve not found it to be ridiculous at all. ddf Delwin D Fandrich Piano Design & Fabrication 620 South Tower Avenue Centralia, Washington 98531 USA <mailto:del at fandrichpiano.com> del at fandrichpiano.com <mailto:ddfandrich at gmail.com> ddfandrich at gmail.com Phone 360.736.7563 From: <mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org> caut-bounces at ptg.org [ <mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org?> mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Dale Erwin Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:30 PM To: <mailto:caut at ptg.org> caut at ptg.org Subject: [CAUT] Fwd: Steinway sound-Hammer weights My goal weight on the extreme right is what I would choose to install on this piano with the high ratio, high velocity system in this piano. I would not go that light. Its ridiculous. This action has action ratio issues so we are moving the knuckle out to handle ta bit more hammer weight and removing some lead. I separated the molding from an original treble hammer. 2.26 grams. Very light. Prepping this set of raw Ronsen hammers will be quite easy to take 1 & 1/2 ish grams off in the bass and 1 in the tenor treble to make the weight listed at the left. So Ihope this has answered your question as to weather modern hammer made the old fashioned way is available for the original model of action prevalent in Pre-war Steinways Dale S. Erwin <http://www.Erwinspiano.com> www.Erwinspiano.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20110301/268f3a3d/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC