[CAUT] Steinway sound-Hammer weights

[David Love]

Thanks for the input but I think for most people "top-low zone" doesn't mean
that much and real numbers are probably easier to deal with.  FWIW my
reference to the weight at #1 and #88 was in view of the curve as it
presents on your "Smartchart".  Clearly the actual shape of the curve can
vary quite a bit.  This was simply for the sake of argument.  

David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com


-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David
Stanwood
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 7:53 AM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound-Hammer weights

Hi all,

Don't have time for full attention to this fascinating thread right 
now but I would like to make a quick suggestion for us right brained 
thinkers....   When someone says to me #1 is a 10.4g Strike Weight I 
really have to go to the chart to see that it's a Top Low Zone... 
Then it makes sense to me.  I think it's easier conceptually for the 
discussion to talk in these terms... If you really need to know the 
value... go to the chart.

Also notes #1 or #88 doesn't interest me or the pianist nearly so 
much as say notes #16, #40, or #64!

Thanks and I'm so happy that hammer weights are broadly in 
discussions these days!

Chart URL: http://www.stanwoodpiano.com/SW-HWstandards4.pdf

Gotta run...

David Stanwood



>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.
>
<snip>