[CAUT] Fwd: Steinway sound-Hammer weights

[Dale Erwin]

 Yeah, hey Fred
  All good and salient points. I am keenly aware of all of this but on the other side of this coin,...if too much historical broad brush strokes are applied it tends to keep us from looking at the pianos in front of us and clouds how we make choices on how to best analyze its issues and which intelligent choice best serve the pianist and music as a whole. 
 After a conversion with Joe Biscellie.Sp? and Ray Negron last year,....they confirmed that the hammers were just fine after the war and really good felt was still available into the 50s & it wasn't a hammer designed as a repository requiring massive doses of anything.
  It was Standard co. felt. & it WAS good stuff! That's a fact.  When that was lost and the new felt came into use is when the issues began. Many things changed , all of which I'm not privy to....and don't care. I mean, who can know for sure.
 Though I take what you say as truly valid, things have changed and evolved, maybe not to our liking, but as my Wife often says, 
  "it is what it is". Get over it.
 As many good discussions do, and contrary to popular opinion, I do have an open mind, and do ponder on the stuff that the " brain trust" here pontificates,.... often.  laugh....it was funny!
  

 

Dale S. Erwin
www.Erwinspiano.com




 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu>
To: caut at ptg.org
Sent: Wed, Mar 2, 2011 6:19 pm
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Fwd:  Steinway sound-Hammer weights



On Mar 2, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Dale Erwin wrote:


 I guess the limiting factor in every age is how heavy the action is and will it give you carpal tunnel.



   The driving factor is hammer mass. 
 There is a historical progression: Larger hammer mass to drive thicker strings and a heavier belly. This requires a lower ratio, to make it playable by humans. This leads to lower velocity of the hammer, less acceleration, less variation in strength of blow. This means that the hammers have to be denser or stiffer, to produce enough of a tone gradient to be a true piano sound. 
    The ratio has continually decreased as hammer weight has increased, with quite a bit of that happening in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Both hammer mass and touch weight have increased over the centuries, together with dip (another aspect of the ratio becoming smaller). And, of course, we still work on pianos that are 50-150 years old, many of which were built with lighter hammers and the associated higher ratio and lesser density.
 All of this can be confusing, especially when you consider that it didn't all happen smoothly and evenly. Steinway, for example, increased hammer weight and tried to compensate mostly with key leads, with obvious and continuing negative results. They also resisted changing the relatively soft hammer density, so the voicers ended up inventing and developing the lacquering process (that is my interpretation, not official history).
    In any case, I think it is best to try to see the whole picture, and not look at one particular aspect and call it good or bad without giving it a context. I don't think any one factor, be it hammer density, hammer mass, ratio, or touch weight, should be looked at in isolation, with some parameter called "good." We need to balance factors, always. Yes, I know I am being annoying and picky. I am agreeing with Del in much of this, so at least I have good company. <G>

 

Regards,
Fred Sturm
fssturm at unm.edu
"A mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled." Plutarch



 


=
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20110302/96d4ee80/attachment-0001.htm>