Hello David, I also agree that hammer matching is important but that is always the case. You can can get every hammer, when you work on it, to a certain level to get the most out of a piano but sometimes you need another hammer whith other characteristics to get an ever better result. An Bosendorfer needs another approach then a Steinway. My point is you have to something to work on and that is given by the soundboard etc. You can get a better result by using the right hammer but I don't think they are the determinant factor. Arnold ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos@comcast.net> To: "'Pianotech'" <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:45 PM Subject: RE: More CC vs RC questions was RE: Killer Octave & Pitch Raise > I'm totally convinced that hammer matching is important. You might > consider that the types of pianos you are working on are similar in > many > respects, i.e., mostly CC boards. Since any medium hardness hammer > can > be manipulated up or down to a degree and therefore in most cases can > be > made to fit well within a certain narrow spectrum of SB designs it > may > seem that one good hammer is all you need. Further analysis of your > end > result, however, would probably show differences in hammer density > achieved by the use of needles. In the case of RC&S boards or boards > with higher spring rates than normal CC boards or other features the > might effect transfer of energy, different hammers may be appropriate > for different boards. Mass and density seem to both be important > considerations. Not unlike the, until more recently, foreign concept > of > matching hammer weight to leverage analysis (as you are well aware), > the > time for a serious consideration of matching hammer mass and density > to > soundboard design seems in order. > > David Love > davidlovepianos@comcast.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On > Behalf Of Richard Brekne > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 12:01 PM > To: Newtonburg > Subject: More CC vs RC questions was RE: Killer Octave & Pitch Raise > > I really think that this whole buisness of matching hammers to > soundboards is rather overstated. We were here just a couple months > back > > with old pianos with so called weak soundboards. Of course there are > extremities... but there are certainly many quality hammers that in > the > hands of a compentent enough voicer can bring out the very best in an > instrument... one way or another. I noticed that Abel Select hammers > were cited as the hammer best for one of the instruments used along > this > > track. Given the fact that it seemed evident that the assessed > problem > was that other hammers were too hard I found this very odd. Abel > Select, > > at least what we get under that name, are anything but very soft > hammers, and certainly harder then the Wurzen pressed by Renner, > certainly harder then Ronsens I've had the opportunity to use, and > way > harder then the NY Steinway hammers I've run into. That said... not a > single one of the hammers mentioned are not more then workable for > any > decent piano IMHO. Let me put it this way..... you put any good > piano, > and any of the mentioned set of hammers, and Andre (or any voicer of > his > > calibre) in the same room for a couple days..... I dont think I need > say > > any more. > > No doubt some systems require more or less from the hammer side of > the > whole equation. That goes without saying. > > Cheers > RicB > > > Well I meant that more as a question than a statement. One thing > that > does interest me is how CC vs RC&S methods influence, either in > design > or execution, the relationship between mass and spring rate and how > that > might relate to proper hammer matching. Which system, for example, > tends to have a thicker panel? It seems that the CC panel is > generally > thicker in the center and tapered toward the rim whereas the RC&S > panel > is slightly thinner and more uniform in thickness (except maybe > around > the bass perimeter). Is that correct? Might not the difference in > mass > distribution of the CC panel explain differences in hammer matching > and > potentially some tonal differences? It seems that the CC panel > requires > a much denser and possibly less flexible hammer than the RC&S board > (at > least in my experience). Whether the tone production potential > between > the two with appropriate hammers is net/net, is something I can't > really > answer but do wonder about. The subject might point to some > differences. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC