Hi Terry, Before we get started would you please post the hammer weights for notes# 16,17,40,41,64,65? This gives a better thumbnail of what's going on. This "Minimal Sampling" is middle c, c# and double octaves either side. Just measuring first and last doesn't tell use what's going on in between very well and that's were the pianist action is! Thanks, David Stanwood >I am replacing hammers in an old upright. I have a concern regarding >hammer weights and how they follow (or rather don't follow) the Stanwood >curves. I have used Stanwood curves in the past to weigh off upright >hammers for tonal purposes - I realize it affects touchweight minimally - >although it does affect the inertia portion of touchweight. > >I have purchased a set of Isaac Credenza hammers for the piano. SW for the >A0 is about 10.8g - right in the lower end of the midsection of Stanwood's >curves, and probably about right for a smallish piano (52"). SW with the >Isaac C88 is 6.9g - right at the most extreme heavy treble hammer on the >Stanwood curves. I presume reducing treble hammer weight will provide >better tone for the piano (maybe not - I guess a 9-foot grand has a >similar speaking length?). As you can see in the picture below, the >original C88 core is a lot smaller than the Isaac - 1.7g compared to 2.9g. >If the new C88 hammer had a core like the original, that hammer weight >would fall in about the middle of the Stanwood curves - a much better >match for the bass. > >I wonder how any Pianotech List participants (and/or lurkers!) have >addressed control of upright hammer weight in a situation like this. > >I don't have any similar new hammers where C88 is much lighter to try to >compare tone. > >And what the heck kind of wood was used on these old actions? It is very >dark right through - some kind of cedar (no pleasant odor)? > >Thanks for any thoughts. > >Terry Farrell
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC