"How likely is it that ALL the hammers of a set (Steinway) would need juicing? I did do the middle section the first time because it seemed a little weak, but left it out of the second application because I didn’t want to overdo it." Paul, I saved some of these posts on juicing because something just didn't seem right in the discussion. Now I know what it was: unexplored options. From that perspective, I'd like to introduce a different idea. I recently attended the WNG class on top action and back action replacement. Bruce Clark gave the presentation. During the class, he made the comment that wooden hammer shanks are not consistent in the amount they flex, saying that they vary "wildly." Composite shanks, on the other hand, are very consistent in the amount they flex. Without citing data to back it up, he suggested that a weaker sound may be attributable to a shank that is too flexible instead of being a hammer issue. Does that mean that a stiffer shank, such as a composite shank, would produce the sound we are chasing using lacquering techniques? I don't know, but it may be worth considering. I don't have plans to test this idea, but I thought I'd throw it on the table as food for thought. Since the composite revolution seems to be the next big thing, it's probably worth exploring as we continue to explore the limits of our more traditional fixes to recurring issues. -John Parham > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [pianotech] Nitrocellulose Lacquer: Stirred, Shaken, or > Left Alone? > From: "Paul Milesi, RPT" <paul at pmpiano.com> > Date: Mon, January 31, 2011 8:56 am > To: PTG Pianotech List <pianotech at ptg.org> > > > Thank you, Al. I did do a second application last evening on the top two > sections of this D, using more like 3 or 4:1. Also, I did stir the gallon > of lacquer this time just to be sure. Your clarifications are much > appreciated! Thank you. > > How likely is it that ALL the hammers of a set (Steinway) would need > juicing? I did do the middle section the first time because it seemed a > little weak, but left it out of the second application because I didn¹t want > to overdo it. > > Paul Milesi, RPT > Washington, DC > (202) 667-3136 > E-mail: paul at pmpiano.com > Website: http://www.pmpiano.com > > > > From: Al Guecia/Allied PianoCraft <alliedpianocraft at hotmail.com> > Reply-To: <pianotech at ptg.org> > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:41:35 -0500 > To: <pianotech at ptg.org> > Subject: Re: [pianotech] Nitrocellulose Lacquer: Stirred, Shaken, or Left > Alone? > > Paul, > > First, it does settle and the lacquer must always be stirred before using. > Secondly, you may need to do several applications to get the results you are > looking for. Thirdly, sometimes you'll need a 4:1 mix on the last 6 or 7 > treble hammers. > > Al - > High Point, NC > > > > On Jan 30, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Paul Milesi, RPT wrote: > > > I purchased a gallon of ML Campbell clear nitrocellulose lacquer and their > > thinner to use to build tone in Steinway hammers. Since this lacquer is 25% > > solids, per Steinway manual I used a ratio of roughly 8:1 thinner to > > lacquer. One application (hammers thoroughly soaked) did not build tone as > > I thought it would. What happened? Also, wondering now if the solids > > settle, and maybe I didn't stir or shake the lacquer before using--don't > > remember now. Does this matter? Thanks for any ideas. Still learning how > > to do this. > > > > Paul Milesi, RPT > > Washington, DC > > (202) 667-3136 > > E-mail: paul at pmpiano.com > > Website: http://www.pmpiano.com > > > > > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC