I was using the Renner shank as the model which is usually 1.8 grams for the untapered and about 1.6 for the tapered. The answer of what will sound better is always a question but in this case the issue being discussed was mostly about the treble section and especially the higher treble. I think in the tenor and bass there’s more forgiveness. Belly stiffness can vary but how much difference in belly stiffness should there really be in the treble section of different pianos? As far as hitting the bottom of the Stanwood chart that choice might be more driven by action geometry than tone requirements. If you have an action that has a ratio upwards of 7.0, you may want to go that light. However, with aging bellies, as they are less able to handle higher amounts of energy imparted by even the original hammers much less a heavier one, you may very well get the best tonal response by going to that level (plus softer and with less felt over the molding). Instead, the tendency is to go heavier and harder even if though that’s often a function of availability and not, perhaps, a conscious choice. That often produces a poor result (as we know). But a heavier and/or bulkier and softer hammer, while not perhaps creating the strident attack of a harder hammer, may still lack a certain clarity and focus. In an aging belly the lighter hammer will also create a smaller differential between the attack and the sustain phase and less distortion at attack that that can help the quality of the compromised sustain. How often do you need to get all the way to the bottom of the chart? Probably not that often but I was just trying to show that the 10.3 – 4.6 strike weight range is not really that low when compared to the range of samples that Stanwood used to produce that chart (if that’s how he did it). David Love www.davidlovepianos.com From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Dale Erwin Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 8:27 PM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Fwd: Steinway sound-Hammer weights Hey David Comments below Dale S. Erwin www.Erwinspiano.com Custom restoration FWIW those original hammers at 8.5 and 3 grams respectively produce strike weights around 10.3 grams for note 1 and 4.6 grams for note 88. This will vary depending on the type of shank used. ie An Abel tapered shank yields about .3 tenths of a gram lighter than a non tapered one & I suspect the WNG type even lighter yet. Something else to factor in when choosing a strike weight. The numbers I posted earlier for the S fall into the next to lowest place on the hammer weight part of the chart so I would call that l really light and appropriate for a small piano but an S is a really small piano. As the size grows so does the string mass, soundboard mass etc. And this is pretty much what I find in countless pianos. Based on measuring multitudes of sample hammers from many instruments of all makes has shown a fairly common range on the hammer weight curve (not strike weight) for many pianos that fall in the 6, 7 & 8 (hammer weight) range. Not excessive as I see it but a far cry from column 2. So, perhaps they all have it wrong, or perhaps all these pianos will sound better with lighter hammers. Actually I think the answer is more complex and it may be answered with the help of hammer sampling. Just as sampling tells us something about the inherent stiffness of the belly, there surely is an inherent hammer weight sweet spot for a given soundboard system in terms of hammer weight. Surely with redesigned bellys being made in varying iteration of stiffness hammer density also becomes an issue. How to find it is the challenge. On the Stanwood chart that puts them at about the 33rd percentile at both ends. Light but not excessively light. In what type of modern piano would excessively light be appropriate? I know of none. The entire range of strike weights on his charts for note #1 are from 8 – 14.8 grams, is ( a 6.2 gram hammer) and for note #88 from 3.5 – 6.9 grams. = (a 1.7 gram hammer) So 10.3 and 4.6 falls at the lower end but not the lowest. My experience is similar to Del’s in that the lighter hammers, especially without excessive felt over the molding in the treble, produces a much greater clarity and dynamic range. A good example of this are those 60’s and 70’s pianos where the Steinway hammer really ratcheted up quite a bit in terms of weight. No argument there Those hammers deliver a lot of “whump” but not a lot of tonal clarity or dynamic range. Swap those things out for a lightweight hammer and the pianos can really come alive with more clarity and less noise—helps with the lousy geometry of those vintages as well.Thanks-Dale David Love <http://www.davidlovepianos.com> www.davidlovepianos.com 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 Delwin D Fandrich Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 5:35 PM To: <mailto:caut at ptg.org> caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Fwd: Steinway sound-Hammer weights I don’t find the “old weights” to be that much different from other old hammers I’ve measured through the upper tenor and treble. Were I fitting hammers to this piano they’d run from about 8.5 grams down to 3 grams; in other words pretty much like you took off. I tend to use relatively soft and light hammers. It’s been a long time since I put on a C-88 hammer weighing more than 4.0 grams on any piano. I’ve not found heavier hammers to give a particularly “darker” sound through the upper tenor and treble. Certainly not more dynamic range. Unless, of course, the weight has been removed by removing felt from the striking area. And, unless you’re working with very high tensions (which with a Model S you probably are unless you’ve replaced the bridge and rescaled the thing.) In fact, clarity of tone and improved dynamic range are two of the reasons why I like using relatively light hammers. That, and it lets me get a lot of the lead out of the keys. In any case, it didn’t seem to me that matching the mass of the original hammers would be particularly ridiculous. But then, I’m pretty much always contrarian…. ddf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20110302/cb3e5ee7/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC