<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>I have to agree with Del here on the hammer choice.  Considering the board is probably a bit weak and prone to some percussive tendencies and add the lighter gauge strings and therefore less downbearing and a lowering of the impedance I think you want to be careful using a hammer that is too hard.  Since the action ratio dictates a light hammer anyway that works out because I think you'll be best with one, especially in the treble section.  Lower tension (if that's the route you go) will increase hammer string contact time and reduce partial development.  So light and not to hard will serve this project well, I would think.  Bacon or a light set of Weickert hammers if you want to go a bit firmer.  Del’s also right that a complete assessment of the scale even if you aren’t changing the speaking lengths can serve to clean things up some, get the tensions and other factors more in line with each other and get a batter balance.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>While we're on this subject I tuned a small Fuerich grand today (172 cm).  It's really a beautifully made piano but, IMO, the scale tensions are simply too high.  To give an idea, in the treble section, C88, 52 mm and 13.5 gauge, note 73, 112 mm 15 gauge puts those tensions up in the 170 lb range.  But worse it's a highish tension achieved largely by string diameter (more than length).  It creates a much harder and edgier sound up there that you just can't voice out.  If you soften the hammers it get dull and harsh rather than bright and harsh, if that makes sense—like putting Steinway hammers on an old Yamaha.  The board seems to be pretty light just from a cursory look at the ribbing (which means a bad match possibly).  There’s plenty of backscale (and a nice laminated cap as well).  Bass relationship to tenor is nice, 29 note bass with 13 monochords, long backscale, though the scaling is a bit weird, some inharmonicity problems evident with how it tunes.  Might be the shape of the bridge was done to match the plate rather than the other way around.  More likely just poor diameter choices.  But in fairness, I haven’t analyzed it.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Anyway, point being that here’s a piano that, in my opinion, could be really nice if the scale were lighter and more balanced with the soundboard (and the hammer along with it) and is a good example of getting two of the three things coordinated (scale and hammer) but the board weighting is for something else—maybe. Again, I’ve not analyzed it, just reacting to what I hear.  At $75,000 new, however, I’m not suggesting that to the customer.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>(BTW, nice to be able to cut and paste a picture here, even though it won’t make it to the archives)  HTML required for this viewing.   <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>David Love<o:p></o:p>www.davidlovepianos.com<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><img width=690 height=460 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image003.jpg@01CC5DDE.69A4C270"><o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p>Hmmmm… light and big (lots of air space between fibers). Like an Isaac<o:p></o:p>(though he no longer appears in the Directory)? Density can be adjusted<o:p></o:p>during the voicing, and there are plenty of light hammer sets around. (Among<o:p></o:p>them, I'd  choose an Abel.)<o:p></o:p>-----<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>      Personally, from what you've written about the desired timbral goals<o:p></o:p>for this piano--and assuming a suitably light scale--I'd be looking at<o:p></o:p>something like a cold-pressed Ronsen with Bacon felt. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>ddf<o:p></o:p></div></body></html>