To be or not to be: a heavy hammer

[David Love]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Several Points:

First, the issue, as I mentioned, is not whether a 5g hammer can replace =
a 10 g hammer, but whether you reap any benefit from going from 10 grams =
to 12, or 5 grams to 7 grams grams.  I'm not arguing "light hammer", I =
aim for medium zone strike weights: 10.5 - 11 g at note 1.  I am arguing =
against going to overly heavy hammers, high strike weight zone type. =20

Second, the differences between hammer #88 and #1 include other things =
besides weight: the amount of felt over the core being a significant =
factor.   Also, as I mentioned, if there is too great a difference in =
mass, then you won't be able to achieve enough of a difference in =
velocity to compensate.

Third, if the lightest you can play with control is with an acceleration =
of x, then the quietest the piano can be made to sound becomes a =
function of the mass of the hammer (una corda aside).  Though the same =
thing is true at the other end a properly voiced piano includes the =
ability to push the volume to the point of distortion (in case you want =
that effect) and so you don't benefit as much there.  I admit this is a =
small point of consideration.

Fourth, a high strike weight zone hammer requires either more lead or =
lower action ratio, or assist springs.  I think actions can be optimized =
in terms of inertia and action ratio.  I don't like FW's up at the =
maximum.  I prefer them at about 80%.  I think it gives a better feel.  =
Action ratios should be where regulation specs are not compromised.  =
Though blow distances vary on certain pianos (though not by much) , I =
think there is an ideal  range of dip, 10 to 10.25 mm.   Deeper than =
that and you start compromising control, in my opinion.  Though pianos =
come out of factories with varying dimensions, it doesn't mean that =
those dimensions are ideal.  A hammer of medium weight allows you to set =
up the piano with FW's that don't approach or exceed maximums and with =
an action ratio that doesn't force you to shorten the blow or deepen the =
dip.  I don't think assist springs offer a benefit in terms of feel or =
control.

Fifth, though rebound is a function of hammer resilience, it is also a =
function of mass.  Try your own experiment, put hammer number 1 at note =
60 and see how it sounds.  My experience is that a high strike weight =
zone hammer in this area offers no improvement in tone.  It makes more =
noise, but not a better quality sound.

Finally, I made these initial comments because I notice a trend among =
some rebuilders to go for high strike weight zone hammers with the idea =
that there are tonal benefits to be reaped.  I don't see the benefits.  =
Moreover, I see that this configuration requires compromises in other =
areas to offset the weight problems that are created.  I see no benefit =
here either.  Though pianists fingers can adapt to anything, I'm not =
that interested in trying to push the envelope to see just what they can =
tolerate.  I'd rather try and find a theoretical ideal that balances =
tone and touch and then make compromises only when necessary, or to =
accommodate specific variations in taste. =20

David Love
=20
This is the heart of Ed McMorrows thinking. He would also add that =
friction is quite reduced with lower hammer weights, though he does not =
formally work this into his equation.  However, while F=3Dm*a is quite =
simple in itself and has led Ed and others to believe that the mass =
reduction of a lighter hammer can be sufficiently compensated for by =
increased acceleration, many years experience with this approach has not =
born that claim out. One need do no more complicated experiment then to =
take a hammer from key 88 and lead it to the same weight as key 1 and =
exchange the two to begin confirming that things are not so simple. =
Voice all you want, or use different hammers all you want, and there is =
still a difference in sound. Perhaps its as simple as saying velocity =
simply does not compensate for mass in the sense we seem to assume here. =

 =20
  Thats an interesting claim, tho I dont see it qualified in any sense. =
And I have heard the opposite being stated, equally unqualified I might =
add. I wonder if you might try and justify all this a bit in terms of =
the mechanics involved. Just why do you think a more massive hammer =
effects no change (or a negative one perhaps) at pppp ? And how can you =
show that a light hammer can be more reliably controlled ?=20
very curioius.=20

  I dont think it has been shown that hammer rebound from the string is =
mostly a function of its mass. Rather I think it has been shown that the =
hammers resiliancy has the most determinant function in this regard. =
Neither do I understand that a lighter hammer allows any particular =
greater freedom in terms of key dip, or blow. These parameters vary =
quite enough as a matter of course already. We see everything from a =
little over 9 mm dip to circa 11 mm dip coming out of factories, and =
from as little as 42 mm blow to as much as 50. There is in fact no =
standard by which to define what a "compromise of keydip, blow or both" =
is.=20
Lowering the ratio will make it lighter at the key, and yet it will it =
will travel less distance with equal key movement, and thus more slowly =
at equal key speed. But because it seems lighter at the key..... the =
finger playing will have a tendancy to compensate in order to achieve =
similiar degrees of sound volume.=20

And its the pianists fingers this is in the end all about. It might be =
instructive to simply change the ratio and compensate the action =
regulation with a change in blow. This would keep key dip and hammer =
mass constant in an attempt to better identify the effect of a change in =
ratio on the perception of touch.=20

   Those are my thoughts.  Feel free to comment.David Love

 me too :)=20

--=20
Richard Brekne=20
RPT, N.P.T.F.=20
UiB, Bergen, Norway=20
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no=20
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html=20
 =20


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/7c/8c/16/ca/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--