I may have an opportunity to try that out on a worn out D. If so, I'll post the results. cool. Alan E. -----Original Message----- From: johnparham <johnparham at piano88.com> To: pianotech <pianotech at ptg.org> Sent: Mon, Feb 7, 2011 12:07 pm Subject: Re: [pianotech] Lacquer hammers or stiffen shanks? Thanks Alan... I think I remember that thread now! I may have an opportunity to try that out on a worn out D. If so, I'll post the results. Thanks again, John Parham > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [pianotech] Lacquer hammers or stiffen shanks? > From: Alan Eder <reggaepass at aol.com> > Date: Mon, February 07, 2011 1:36 pm > To: pianotech at ptg.org > > > John, > > > 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. > > Not too long ago, someone (David Stanwood?) reported that someone else (Doug Wood?) had changed the shanks and flanges ONLY on an otherwise well-voiced and regulated performance piano (S&S D?). With the WNG shanks, the same hammers, in the same condition suddenly had much more power at their disposal. Obviously, there are many details that I am not sure about, and this is a sample of only one, but it is food for thought concerning your comments about energy loss due to too-flexible shanks. > > > Alan Eder > > > -----Original Message----- > From: johnparham <johnparham at piano88.com> > To: pianotech <pianotech at ptg.org> > Sent: Tue, Feb 1, 2011 3:12 pm > Subject: [pianotech] Lacquer hammers or stiffen shanks? > > > "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 > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110207/9ea9cad5/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC