[CAUT] Fwd: Steinway sound-Hammer weights

[Dale Erwin]

  Del
   Ok... An explanation is a great thing. Thanks, good to know you had your reasons.
  It is easy for me to imagine that due to wear and age these original hammers perhaps weighed 3 to 5 tenths of gram more than they do when they ere new. If so, then the weights proposed in the right hand column,which, are not cast in stone, are, conceivably within 1/2 to 1  gram of original weight, which, is not a  huge  increase. 
  If the weights in the right hand column from note 40 thru the top were decreased only 1/2 a gram and the original increased by the same amount then the difference is so close as to be a non issue. Take the old weight in the column below and add .5 tenths of a gram for wear and drying over time/whatever. Now the values for the originals are in the left and the proposed on the right.
 4---.- 8.9             8.4 would keep  note 4 and 16 at this weight    
16.----8.5              8.0
28----7.0              7.1
40----6.4              7.0  
52.---5.76            6.0
64---5.5               5.5
76---4.1                4.5
88.--3.7                4.0
 
  The original purpose of my post was to tell Richard he can indeed get hammers made as light as old Steinway/Mason/Baldwin. I made a comment of personal preference based on the sound of a slightly heavier hammer. I do have a good reason.  The modest boost in weight increases, string contact time and the sound is darker which I like. A bit more power and dynamic range. Also with original hammer weight this light I'd expect the sound may be a bit thin. Reasonable leading can still be attained 
    So  are saying that you routinely install hammers this light? As light as the original weights?
 Certainly one wouldn't reduce the weights of these original hammers when replacing them. (ok, may be one someone would).
  My point is, the gram weight of the original hammers used as an example here are sitting on the bottom of what most will consider a reasonable hammer weight. Certainly a hammer with this weight on a scale of one to ten would be characterized  as light, so your remonstration to me seemed a bit contrarian.
 Enough said
 

Dale S. Erwin
www.Erwinspiano.com
Ronsen Piano hammers
209-577-8397


Original Message-----
From: Delwin D Fandrich <del at fandrichpiano.com>
To: caut at ptg.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 10:30 am
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Fwd:  Steinway sound-Hammer weights



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
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

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: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:30 PM
To: 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
www.Erwinspiano.com


 



 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20110301/4c1325e3/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 449133 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20110301/4c1325e3/attachment-0001.jpeg>