> > <<"The short answer is maybe, but probably not by itself." > Del">> > > Del; > The question was "contribute" not 'cause'. In my way of thinking the > "heavier" hammer will "contribute" in several ways, i.e., a. It will result > in more forceful playing to acheive the same volume as with a lighter hammer. > b. It will have a longer force dissipation contact time with the string. (?) > among others. > > Although "saturation" certainly figures in the equation at some point I > would think that the 'significant' differences would not show up until the > higher end is reached, or is my thinking faulty here? > > It really is interesting how a tounge in cheek remark will foster so many > different responses and viewpoints Huh? :-) > Jim Bryant (FL) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim, That is why I said "maybe...." There are precious few absolutes in this business. Still, piano action dynamics are such that for a given amount of energy input to the key there will be a given amount of energy at hammer impact regardless of the hammer mass. The lighter hammer will have attained a higher velocity and the heavier hammer a somewhat lower velocity, but the actual amount of energy transferred from the finger to the string will remain essentially the same. Also, at the ridiculous extremes of key velocity, for every given action there will be some finite amount of energy transfer possible, again without regard to hammer mass. The key will simply bottom against the front rail punching before the hammer impacts the string. As may be, I'm not convinced it is the actual amount of energy involved, but the rate at which that energy is transferred from the hammer to the string -- along the resulting energy mix set up in the various partials -- that contributes to the string breaking problem. And that is a function of the density and shape of the hammer. Hammer size is not an issue since it is not a reliable indicator of either hammer density or stiffness. Hammers of equal size can vary considerably in mass, density and elasticity. Nor is the original pressing technique an indicator -- a hammer can start out quite nicely elastic and be made both stiff and dense by the addition of chemicals. Most massive hammers are, by design, quite dense and physically unyielding -- and, hence, become every technicians voicing nightmare. When these hammers impact the string(s), there is no give to them as the resulting hard-sounding tone quality attests. To some extent the initial harshness also common with these hammers can be lessened by loosening up the surface of the hammer. So factories typically "fuzz" the surface somewhat. This works nicely on the showroom floor and for a few months of normal play, but it soon wears away. Then the technician is left with the task of making the piano sound "like it did when it was new." In desperation, the technician tries all sorts of things to cope -- needles, steam, chemicals of various types, mechanical squeezing, whatever the desperately inventive mind can think of -- to lessen the impact shock of the hammer against the string(s). And, who knows, in time the technical community may well develop sufficient technology to cope successfully with these things. But should it all really be necessary? Surely not. Very dense hammers are easier -- and cheaper -- to make consistently than are resilient hammers, but I can discern no other justification for them. They do help overcome the acoustic characteristics of the excessively stiff and massive soundboards and light, floppy rims, but these are problems of the piano builders own making and need to be addressed at the design and manufacturing stage. My advice for years has been that if the technician receives a set of these rock hard hammers, they should be sent back to the supplier. If they happen to come pre-attached to a piano, well.... So, until I come across some compelling argument that convinces me otherwise, I am of the belief that it is the unyielding and inelastic nature of the dense hammer, coupled with the shape of the hammer at the striking point, rather than its actual mass, that are most often the culprits. A broad striking shape -- one with a relatively large radius by design, or one that is actually flat from wear, and regardless of the elastic nature of the hammer -- is quite hard on the string. Given both a broad striking "point" and an inelastic and unyielding foundation, the poor strings don't have much of a chance. (Notice, none of the above detracts from the need to keep an action properly regulated. Nor does it detract from the players responsibility to play the instrument properly. There are some folks who, for the good of music in general, probably shouldn't be allowed to play anything except worn-out Grand spinets and the occasional Brambach grand.) Regards, Del
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC