It appears that a lot of y'all like the Ronsen Werzen's. Is the difference between them and Brooks-Abel huge?  I haven't tried the RW's, but now curious to try.  Before becoming a CAUT, I liked the Renner Blues, but the Brooks/Abels won that battle pretty easily (at least on Steinways I've done so far). Is the dynamic range greater with RW's?  What lasts longer? How much time difference in installing/voicing between the two? Thanks Paul <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td width=40%>"Porritt, David" <dporritt@mail.smu.edu> Sent by: caut-bounces@ptg.org 09/14/2007 06:08 AM <table border> <tr valign=top> <td bgcolor=white> <div align=center>Please respond to College and University Technicians <caut@ptg.org></div></table> <td width=59%> <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <div align=right>To</div> <td>"College and University Technicians" <caut@ptg.org> <tr valign=top> <td> <div align=right>cc</div> <td> <tr valign=top> <td> <div align=right>Subject</div> <td>Re: [CAUT] My take on them, (was The "new" S&S Hammers).</table> <table> <tr valign=top> <td> <td></table> </table> <tt>Ed: I find I agree with you on all you have written below.  I have the same ideas about voicing (hard core, more resilient strike point).  We have 5 new (still under warranty) Steinways with factory hammers.  They are all deeply grooved and look like Renners after 20 years.  I should be replacing them soon but undoubtedly will filing them trying to get a little more use from them.   I would recommend trying a set of the Ronsen Wurzen hammers.  I think they'll work well with your approach to voicing. dave David M. Porritt, RPT dporritt@smu.edu -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of A440A@aol.com Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:32 PM To: caut@ptg.org Subject: [CAUT] My take on them, (was The "new" S&S Hammers). David writes: << why would you buy hammers that cost more, take more work, and hope they "have less noisy attack"?  Is this for the customer who insists on Genuine Steinway parts or is the normal procedure? >>      Hmm, I may have been misunderstood. I was speaking of how I approach Steinway hammers that have become harsh.         I prefer the Renner hammers, and am considering using the Ronsen Wurzens on the next Steinway.  However, I do have to work with Steinway hammers when I have a new piano to deal with.  In the school setting, the problem begins after the first year, when the hammers begin to become harsh.  I do have customers that want Steinway parts, so I give them Steinway parts.    Now, to consider several things:  the Steinway hammers don't take more work, voicing with lacquer is much easier than the exhaustive accupuncture that Renner Blues require.  I also think that the Steinway hammers can provide better tone than anything else, for just a little while, but they are NOT durable.   It is a lot like the tires that Nascar racing cars use,which provide better traction than anything you can get in the store, but you have to change them every 20 miles.  The soft wool/ excessively lacquered hammers (Swells) provide a great tone, but after they have been played a year or two in the school environment, it becomes difficult to maintain the range of mellow pianissimo/brilliant forte. Needling these sugar cubes kills the offending ping, but the range begins to disappear.      If there is a school that can afford to replace hammers every two years, the factory hammers are the way to go. However, longevity is a prime consideration for CAUT work,(at least, it is here in Gnashville), and I have too much other wear to address in the school to bleed the maintenance budget keeping the stage pianos sublime with factory hammers.  Renners do fine over the long haul. They take a lot more work, up front, but they can go 6 years or so before becoming narrow in their range.       I preferred the un-treated factory hammers, because I could lacquer them as per the older method, ie.  I soaked hardener into the shoulders until the solution reached the tip of the core from both sides.  This usually allowed me to put them into service as "mellow" and with some playing to compact the surface, the hammers began to "speak" after perhaps 40 hours of play. Sometimes, I had to add an eyedropper full on the sides, right at the tip of the core, so that the soak area moved closer to the strike point.  Hammers thus treated would hold their tonal range for far longer than what I find now. Sometimes I have been able to introduce solvent at the crown to remove some of the harshness.      What I find from the current factory offering is a hard hammer that sounds loud, but lacks body at a distance, (like the middle of a 700 seat hall).   This became evident last year when a new D was played next to a much older D with 5 year old Renner blues on it.  On the stage, the new piano seemed much stronger, the old one seemed mellow and lacked "power".  HOwever, out in the hall, the new piano sounded stringy and thin while the older piano sounded full and resonant.  Experienced performers that pay attention understand this, but many pianists simply go by what they hear on the stage, <sigh>   Power comes from the lower frequencies, a hammer must be resilent to produce them. Definition and clarity come from the higher frequencies, the hammer must have some stiffness to create them.  Getting a hammer to possess all of these qualities requires a rock hard deep inner core with a certain amount of resilience above it.  This can be done with lacquer, if it is kept away from the outer surface at the strike point.  But this capacity seems to be more rapidly perishable on the heavily lacquered hammers, that is why I prefer to take a highly compressed hammer and introduce the non-linear flexibility with needles.  I can keep the tonal range in play for a far longer time.   Just my too-sense worth, Regards, Ed Foote RPT http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com</HTML> </tt>