Not wanting to divert Paul's inquiry about Steinway hammer thread, I figured to offer up my recent experience in voicing with a complete rebuild of a WNG Baldwn SD-10 action (John Parham's response got me thinking) :) I tried to create a new thread but to no avail, the system did not allow....Sorry Paul. This past month in Bozeman, MT, we (Randy Potter & group) had an advanced hand's on training seminar. I'm the lucky guy who gets to lead the group of willing participants (maybe not so willing after the week's end...LOL). This year we tore into a Baldwin action, replacing the existing parts with the new WNG parts. First observations, I enjoy the consistency. Realize due to time constraints, I was not in a position to travel to Bozeman during the summer months to analyize six ways to Sunday the various component configurations for optimium results. So, primarily samples of the existing parts were sent off for duplication. We had the hammers pre-hung, whippen heels matched, both height and length, bore distance, etc. There was quite a bit of modification necessary for the whippen rail which is quite typical for the WNG whips. We measured, weighed and entered data in a spreadsheet based on Stanwood's formulas (something I built way back with Vince Mrykalo in the early 90's) and assessed action ratios, strike weight curve, and so forth. We took the ratio from 6.4 down to a 5.6. Moved capstans, half puchings, smoothed strike weight which resulted in a much smoother front weight...all in all set it up for a 38 balance weight as that seemed to "feel" the best. As an aside, having 7 people helping move capstans, I can honestly say I've never done that job faster in my life :) :) :) Now to the voicing. All those necessary steps for consistency were accomplished before hand (string seating, leveling, mating, tuning, fine regulation, etc.) then on to the actual "needling". My observations are as such: The tonality responded evenly with each pass of needling methods. I generally pre-needle stock hammers anyway, so this was done before hand. Once in the piano though, I was somewhat surprised at the overall consistency, with chalk in hand, thinking there would be some "demons". The "flavor" of the tone had continuity, especially passing through the strut breaks sections...something I was not prepared for. Now, certainly having a smooth strike weight (we added weight to individual hammers for smoothing) helps tremendously for flowing tonality but this time seemed a bit different. I can only attribute this phenomenom to the composite shanks...at least that is my perception. We were able to acheive pianissimo to fortissimo in short order without higher the zing of predominant higher partials, bloom rather than attack then the tone falls off the planet, and richness coupled with warmth. As I continued to voice for timbre, attack, sustain or decay, it appeared much more consistent from note to note. I think of voicing like driving a Porche....zero to 60 in 2 seconds flat.....I know, there really isn't a vernacular available but many of you know what I mean. The WNG shanks, in my humble opinion, because of the consistency and "lack" of flex provides a much more consistent and predictable outcome. I also loved how they "burnt in" which is really cool. Using the same method as with wooden shanks, you can easily feel them nudge once the shank is heated. We only had about 5 or 6 to square but was quite fun. I'll probably think of more advantages when voicing with the WNG at a later time...like 3:00 AM...LOL Thanks for reading! -- Dave Swartz, RPT Cory Products www.corycare.com On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:12 PM, <johnparham at piano88.com> wrote: > "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 <+12026673136> > > 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 <+12026673136> > > > E-mail: paul at pmpiano.com > > > Website: http://www.pmpiano.com > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110201/e433903d/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC