<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1593" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ric, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>All you say is on the way as long as we stay
focused on the fact that heavier hammers require a lower action Ratio and
lighter hammers require a higher one. Hence Ed M's actions worked best
with a 15.65mm knuckle. I'm sure you know this I just wanted to extrapolate
alittle, maybe even clarify...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Chris Solliday</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=ricb@pianostemmer.no href="mailto:ricb@pianostemmer.no">Richard
Brekne</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=caut@ptg.org
href="mailto:caut@ptg.org">caut@ptg.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:01
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [CAUT] Voicing
method/analogy</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>In principle this is sound reasoning as far as it goes. It does
not take into consideration however the physical limitations imposed on hammer
velocity for a given hammer mass in the context of the system we call the
action. Nor does it take into consideration things like increased flexing of
the shank, the requirements for counterbalancing both in static and dynamics
senses. All else being equal... this would work just as well as Ed McMorrows
Light Hammer philosophy. In his case.. the lack of weight would be
compensated by the increased velocity yeilding the same nett impact force....
velocity times mass. If it was just as simple as this... then any
combination of velocity times mass that equaled any other given combination
would yeild the same force on whatever stopping force was encountered. But as
we know... it isnt.<BR><BR>Not to say that to some degree one can employ these
ideas to achieve some resultant effect... but I dont really think these have
been quantified really yet. Clearly, IMHE in anycase.... an equal
velocity times mass given to significantly different hammer masses will not
yeild the same tonal affects no matter what voicing is done.... but just what
exactly are all the contributing causes to the resultant differences are not,
I think, known at this point... only guessed at.<BR><BR>I find folks
attempting to use hammer weights that are equivalants of what might be called
3/4 over load Strike Weights... ala Stanwood... i.e. a level above his smart
chart hammers. Bass SW's starting at 15 grams.... Personally I
find this kind of thing .... well untenable in the end. Just as much so
as I find the extreme light hammers proposed by McMorrow (whome I have great
respect for as I do Stanwood). Using Stanwoods gauge again... I see a
max SW curve of perhaps 1/2 tops and a minimum of perhaps 1/4 medium as in the
useble range for about 99.8% of anything I can possibly imagine as acceptable.
Outside of these mass levels you run into all manner of other considerations
that need to be delt with... all yeilding in the end what is what I believe
all the data out there tells us will not be met with acceptance in the world
of pianists. There are always the exceptions... Horowitz comes to
mind... <BR><BR>I just took a 20 year old Steinway D that had had a
hammer change done a few years back without regard to key leading. The
Strikeweight Curve was fairly even and ended up a pretty smoothed out 1/4
top. Ratio (ala Stanwood) of 5.7 +.... and I balance the keys to
just slightly above his recommended maximums to end up with a 36 gram
BW. The pianist... one of todays Rubenstein types.... simply loved the
touch. New bushings and polished key pins of course helped as
well... I think the most important thing to remember in voicing
using hammer mass as a tool.... is to keep things in reasonable ball parks. No
one is going to hit a 580 foot home run.<BR><BR>Just some thoughts from the
other side of the pond<BR><BR>Cheers<BR>RicB<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR> It is well established that adding
weight to a hammer changes the tone.<BR>Flexibility or springiness of the
material added is also a factor.<BR>Analogy:<BR>A student railroad engineer
was instructed to bring a 100 car train to a<BR>precision stop.
Immediately after doing so, there came a jolt, and the<BR>locomotives were
pushed well past the target before stopping again. The<BR>student was
instructed that brakes should have been deployed to compress the<BR>train
prior to the stop. Stopping with a stretched train allowed the
rear<BR>of the train to still be moving forward after the front had stopped
so when<BR>the "slack ran in" the front was pushed forward.<BR><BR>Consider
a piano hammer as a train, the strike point being the locomotive,<BR>and the
tail the rear cars. A hard hammer with no spring is like
a<BR>compressed train, where the tail stops at the same time as the strike
point.<BR>In a soft hammer the weight of the tail is still moving upwards
after the<BR>strike point has stopped. A factor in tone is from
the type of stop made,<BR>or how much "run in of slack" or "after push"
occurs when strike point<BR>stops. <BR><BR>You can voice rock hard hammer
heads by adding controlled flexible weight<BR>appendages to create the
optimum amount of springy "after push" or "run in<BR>of slack". Choose
a glue or caulk which dries flexibly or springy and add<BR>to the inside of
the tail cove. Trim and shape it for weight and amount
of<BR>flex. A pronounced blob of glue of a given amount will
have more flex than<BR>the same amount spread in a thin layer inside the
tail cove. This is a<BR>viable voicing method to develop and use
in your arsenal.<BR><BR>-Mike Jorgensen
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>