This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Bill Ballard" <yardbird@pop.vermontel.net> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: July 17, 2002 9:01 PM Subject: Re: Shellac vs. lacquer I actually consider Brooks Ltd. Encore hammers to be the closest of = perfect, as far as tonal development. It's nice and warm the first time = you play the hammers set, and with a year or two's playing the tone will = bloom without any prompting by you. And I say tomahtoes... Though I don't mind the tone when they are new, = I don't really care for how they develop. It is difficult to describe = what we hear--there's not really a language for sound--but to me the = tone lacks depth and range. I'm not saying that it's a bad hammer. I = service many pianos with Abel hammers and I am comfortable working with = them to get the best of what's there, it's just not my first choice. I = think what bothers me is how unresponsive the felt is to needles, at = least when compared to the Renner hammers I have worked with. =20 There are two ways in which felt can be densified: increasing the mass = while holding steady the volume or decreasing the volume while not = changing the mass.=20 No argument there. Mass (and by definition, density) can be added to without increasing the = solid's=20 volume. What can't be restored once damaged, is elasticity. That's=20 why I am concerned by anything while damages the "aliveness" of this=20 muscle. No question that you run that risk with lacquer if not applied = correctly. But the use of lacquer doesn't necessarily mean a loss of = elasticity. >One interesting experiment might be to take a NY Steinway >hammer, infuse it with an alcohol and water solution and throw it into = the >drier for an hour to see if that doesn't brighten it up. Are you talking raw or reinforced? I'd be more interested if the=20 water content had say, an unaccelerated 24 hours to do its work. I was talking about a raw hammer in order to avoid reinforcing. The = goal is to get denser felt. If that can be done with controlled = shrinkage and thereby avoid the pitfalls of lacquer I would prefer it, = or at least I would be interested to see how it sounds. If Steinway = would give me a few extra hammers per set (or how about one extra) I = would try it. =20 I would think poring it in from the sides would be just the thing to=20 give the felt mass a firm foundation. I was surprised that it seemed=20 not to make a difference in the focus of the sound on two Ls this=20 spring. It would seem eventually the strike point will have to be=20 reinforced. Reinforcing the foundation of the hammer has worked for me but I allow = the lacquer to creep toward the crown. Actually, in the upper range, = usually from about G5 to the top, I will saturate the hammer. Going = down I start to apply from the sides and let it creep fairly close to = the crown at first (1/16") moving it farther and farther away as I go = down in the bass. In the mid range I let it creep to maybe 1/8", in the = bass maybe 3/16". The effect is that you can feel the firmness on a = blow that compresses the felt down to this nether region. I still add = a drop or two of weak solution to the crown from the point at which I = start applying from the sides. But I usually iron first to see if I = can't get what I want that way and add lacquer to the crown if I need = something more. =20 David Love ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/ec/48/f2/25/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC