Bulky heavy and soft won't develop. Light, trim and soft will. In fact,
light, trim and soft(ish) may not even need to develop that much. (A trim
hammer versus a bulky hammer I define as the thickness of felt over the
molding). Whether you start with a soft hammer or a hard hammer the goal is
pretty much the same, much like you describe below. Firm under the crown
and flexible shoulders. If the hammer is firm to begin with you have to
make the shoulders flexible. If the hammer is soft to begin with you don't
have to make the shoulders flexible but you might have to make the area
under the crown firm(er). If the hammer is light and trim (and a proper
high action ratio to accompany it) then you'll get power (from the speed of
the hammer), high partial development (due to quick escapement from the
string) and possibly even a wider dynamic range because you'll be able to
play softer and perhaps control the upper partial development better. If
the hammer is hard, bulky and heavy, you'll need it hard to develop upper
partials and to offset the loss of power that results from the loss of speed
from the lower ratio (hopefully). So putting the specific soundboard
response and scale requirements aside for a minute, what's better? A
rhetorical question really because I'm not necessarily suggesting there's an
answer--there are other variables. But if the scale and board can handle
light, trim and soft with a high action ratio then one could certainly argue
that that's a good choice. If the board and scale are heavy, you'll
probably need a harder *and* heavier hammer (hard and light is a bad
combination and doesn't sound very good). So rather than looking at hard
versus soft, it's more important to look at hardness combined with weight
and bulk and not either of those two things separately. I'm assuming that
whichever way we go (heavy or light, bulky or trim) the hammer is a quality
hammer meaning deeply interlocking felt with a lot of tension. What varies
will be the density. I have generally found that lighter, less bulky,
softer hammers give greater clarity and tonal range than harder, heavier,
more bulky hammers assuming there isn't an overriding reason (belly and
scale requirements) to have to go the heavier/harder route.
With respect to the Steinway hammer, it fails the weight/density/bulk
compatibility test, in my view. It is a low density hammer that has high
weight and high bulk. So, you have to use hardeners. While I know you can
get some decent results with (or in spite of) hardeners (although the piano
I heard last night at WestPac was a great example of the horrors of lacquer
IMHO), personally, I don't like it and would never choose a hammer that
would require 3-4 (or more) applications of lacquer if I had any other
choice, and assuming I wasn't being threatened with death or termination to
stray from the manufacturer's own product. Not only does it compromise the
tone in the short run but even more so in the long run as the lacquer
continues to harden and eventually renders the felt immobile. That's not to
say that people don't learn to play the piano that way or that technicians
owing to their great skill and experience can't make it acceptable, even
nice (maybe), but it's not something I would purposefully choose in order to
achieve some idealized goal.
David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Sturm [mailto:noreply at egroups.ptg.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 1:45 PM
To: David Love
Subject: Voicing: hammer density and tone color
This is a post I just made to the caut list, and I am inserting it here to
get things going.
On Mar 4, 2011, at 10:24 PM, David Love wrote:
My preference is to find a hammer that's as close to my goal as possible
and that requires the least amount of manipulation. While I am comfortable
with how to handle larger manipulations when necessary I can't say I prefer
it or that it produces a particularly stable result.
David Love
Well, I can't say I disagree, but I would rather be sure to start too
dense than not dense enough. If the hammer doesn't have the degree of
density and tension, particularly above the crown, to do the job to begin
with, there is really no recourse but hardener. And there is less to work
with in the sense of manipulating the spectrum. I have waited very patiently
for overly soft hammers to "come up," and while it may happen sometimes, I
have watched years go by with fairly heavy use, and still the same lack of
"build" in the tone.
The basic techniques have been well understood and pretty stable for
many decades: leave a tear drop shape of essentially untouched, dense felt,
with its point at the strike point (the point can be sharps or dull, to vary
the final result). Deep needle the rest of the felt (not necessarily all the
way down the shoulder, but at least half way), starting low and working up.
Then adjust the area closest to the strike, usually with a single needle, to
even things out, and do a bit of shallow crown voicing if needed for
pianissimo. Also do shallow una corda voicing in between the "string groove"
points on the hammers. This gives a very broad spectrum of tone color, if
done skillfully. (It can also be done quite unskillfully, and leave results
that are far below par). Furthermore, I find that it is quite stable, though
I would qualify that by saying that it seems like the felt "repacks" after
the first and maybe second thorough needling. The shoulders feel denser than
they were left after the first voicing, so they probably became denser as
the tension and density adjusted through the hammer. But overall, it is not
a difficult model hammer to keep up. Usually after the third voicing it is
quite stable, and the 2nd and 3rd don't take all that long.
Furthermore, with that "untapped well of density" in the core, it is
possible to voice up, either using a single extra long needle into the core
or by filing.
A good example of a hammer that needs little manipulation to get good
results is the Renner Weickert. I had the opportunity to play a brand new
set (no pre-voicing) on one of Michael Spreeman's Ravenscroft pianos, then
play it after he had some a really mild shoulder job - maybe 3-4 strokes, 3
needle deep, per shoulder. Quite a development of range from such a small
amount of work. They sounded "acceptable" raw.
I think I will post this to the new Voicing list on MyPTG as a way to
get discussion started there.
-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
fssturm at ...
-------------------------------------------
Reply to Sender :
http://my.ptg.org/PTG/PTG/Discussions/PostReply/Default.aspx?GroupId=1189&Se
nderKey=52e9bbfa-5661-48d1-ab4f-5ee362602d4c&MID=216287&MDATE=84%3b47566&Use
rKey=c6bec9da-82ac-413c-b761-8ffbb84d2e9a
Reply to Discussion :
http://my.ptg.org/PTG/PTG/Discussions/PostReply/Default.aspx?GroupId=1189&MI
D=216287&MDATE=84%3b47566&UserKey=c6bec9da-82ac-413c-b761-8ffbb84d2e9a
You are currently subscribed to ptg_voicingbb as:
davidlovepianos at comcast.net. To change your subscription options (or
unsubscribe), go to:
http://my.ptg.org/PTG/myptgorgPTGPTG/Discussions/MySubscriptions/Default.asp
x and update your preferences.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC