<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>FWIW those original hammers at 8.5 and 3 grams respectively produce strike weights around 10.3 grams for note 1 and 4.6 grams for note 88. On the Stanwood chart that puts them at about the 33rd percentile at both ends. Light but not excessively light. The entire range of strike weights on his charts for note #1 are from 8 – 14.8 grams, and for note #88 from 3.5 – 6.9 grams. So 10.3 and 4.6 falls at the lower end but not the lowest. My experience is similar to Del’s in that the lighter hammers, especially without excessive felt over the molding in the treble, produces a much greater clarity and dynamic range. A good example of this are those 60’s and 70’s pianos where the Steinway hammer really ratcheted up quite a bit in terms of weight. Those hammers deliver a lot of “whump” but not a lot of tonal clarity or dynamic range. Swap those things out for a lightweight hammer and the pianos can really come alive with more clarity and less noise—helps with the lousy geometry of those vintages as well. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div>David Love<o:p></o:p>www.davidlovepianos.com<o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Delwin D Fandrich Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 5:35 PM To: caut@ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Fwd: Steinway sound-Hammer weights<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>I don’t find the “old weights” to be that much different from other old hammers I’ve measured through the upper tenor and treble. Were I fitting hammers to this piano they’d run from about 8.5 grams down to 3 grams; in other words pretty much like you took off. I tend to use relatively soft and light hammers. It’s been a long time since I put on a C-88 hammer weighing more than 4.0 grams on any piano. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I’ve not found heavier hammers to give a particularly “darker” sound through the upper tenor and treble. Certainly not more dynamic range. Unless, of course, the weight has been removed by removing felt from the striking area. And, unless you’re working with very high tensions (which with a Model S you probably are unless you’ve replaced the bridge and rescaled the thing.) In fact, clarity of tone and improved dynamic range are two of the reasons why I like using relatively light hammers. That, and it lets me get a lot of the lead out of the keys. In any case, it didn’t seem to me that matching the mass of the original hammers would be particularly ridiculous. But then, I’m pretty much always contrarian….<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>ddf<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p></div></body></html>