<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> David Love wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style> Several Points: First, the issue, as I mentioned, is not whether a 5g hammer can replace a 10 g hammer, but whether you reap any benefit from going from 10 grams to 12, or 5 grams to 7 grams grams.  I'm not arguing "light hammer", I aim for medium zone strike weights: 10.5 - 11 g at note 1.  I am arguing against going to overly heavy hammers, high strike weight zone type.</blockquote> I understood this David, of course we are talking about 1 to 2 gram differences. What I dont see is that there is any real qualification for saying that SW's that fall into the Stanwood (I assume that's what you are referring too) high SW zones are, as you say, "overly heavy".  Such hammers can certainly be made to function well in an action, either with or without assist springs. Indeed one does not require any particularly low ratio levels to regulate quite normally until one approaches the highest levels of the high SW zone. Nor does any of this require abnormally high levels of FWs. I daily see pianos off the factory line with much higher levels then the balance equation results in for this level of SW. It is my view that this particular piece of the discussion is a matter of taste more then it is anything else. I doubt that you are suggesting that a 2 or even a 1 degree difference in SW across the board will  result in no significant difference in sound or touch.  Second, the differences between hammer #88 and #1 include other things besides weight: the amount of felt over the core being a significant factor.   Also, as I mentioned, if there is too great a difference in mass, then you won't be able to achieve enough of a difference in velocity to compensate. Of course the extremeness of the example was meant to point exactly out that there is much more going on then simple velocity/mass relationships. And to be frank, I have not seen anything that shows that this concept of mass compensation is entirely valid. If anything our experiences with Ed's philosophies point in the opposite direction. I would personally be surprised if even a half gram difference across the board in SW would not be noticeable. And indeed, the clip weight experiment bears this out. Whether you like the sound or not is a different matter entirely.... and falls within the realm of personal taste does it not ?  Third, if the lightest you can play with control is with an acceleration of x, then the quietest the piano can be made to sound becomes a function of the mass of the hammer (una corda aside).  Though the same thing is true at the other end a properly voiced piano includes the ability to push the volume to the point of distortion (in case you want that effect) and so you don't benefit as much there.  I admit this is a small point of consideration.  But no one has shown that the lightest you can play with control is the same for every hammer mass, nor which one is more controllable then the other. The lowest controllable hammer velocity in our instrument is largely dependent upon the ratio used. And a lower ratio will mean a significant reduction in velocity as well. Further we have the problem of SW to SWR. I have not heard it said that hammers in the Low Mid range or below match to well with ratios of less then 5.7, certainly not 5.3 or lower. If you use then 5.7 or above to match your light hammers, you also increase acceleration. You may not be able to achieve the same controllable low force with a higher ratio lighter SW match as you can with a lower ratio higher SW match.  Fourth, a high strike weight zone hammer requires either more lead or lower action ratio, or assist springs.  I think actions can be optimized in terms of inertia and action ratio.  I don't like FW's up at the maximum.  I prefer them at about 80%.  I think it gives a better feel.  Action ratios should be where regulation specs are not compromised.  Though blow distances vary on certain pianos (though not by much) , I think there is an ideal  range of dip, 10 to 10.25 mm.   Deeper than that and you start compromising control, in my opinion.  Though pianos come out of factories with varying dimensions, it doesn't mean that those dimensions are ideal.  A hammer of medium weight allows you to set up the piano with FW's that don't approach or exceed maximums and with an action ratio that doesn't force you to shorten the blow or deepen the dip.  I don't think assist springs offer a benefit in terms of feel or control.  Yes, but your personal tastes are of no consequence to the matter at hand. I admit freely I like more moderate mass levels then some of my esteemed colleagues. Yet that doesn't mean I can show they are right or wrong for choosing otherwise. The same really applies to dip and other parameters. Fact is some folks just plain like a deeper dip then others, and its our job to identify these preferences and attempt to find an optimal regulation for that particular person, not impose some idea we personally have on these matters. If there is so far, any standard for optimal control, then the  balance of FW, SW, and R as per the balance equation must be the best we have seen yet. But within the scope of what that formula allows, you can allow yourself quite a wide degree of freedom in the choice of SW's. Indeed..... that is the whole point. Different mass levels provide different tonal results. Whatever mass levels you personally prefer is of course your own affair. SALUT !! grin. But once chosen, optimal spread geometry first, followed by an optimization of action balance will result in a very fine and very even touch and pleasant sound. Fifth, though rebound is a function of hammer resilience, it is also a function of mass.  Try your own experiment, put hammer number 1 at note 60 and see how it sounds.  My experience is that a high strike weight zone hammer in this area offers no improvement in tone.  It makes more noise, but not a better quality sound. Better is to add lead to the existing hammer 60 to achieve that same weight. I find that the results of such experiments agree largely with the exhaustive data compiled by Stanwood on the matter. That is in part, the basis for his three SW zones. Outside these zones turns out to be some combination of limited use, limited workability, or just plain not popular to the masses of pianists and listeners who's opinions (vaguely defined as they are) have determined the range we see out there. Finally, I made these initial comments because I notice a trend among some rebuilders to go for high strike weight zone hammers with the idea that there are tonal benefits to be reaped.  I don't see the benefits.  Moreover, I see that this configuration requires compromises in other areas to offset the weight problems that are created.  I see no benefit here either.  Though pianists fingers can adapt to anything, I'm not that interested in trying to push the envelope to see just what they can tolerate.  I'd rather try and find a theoretical ideal that balances tone and touch and then make compromises only when necessary, or to accommodate specific variations in taste. I agree that there is a tendency among some rebuilders to move in the direction of heavier SW's. Indeed I pointed this out 3 months back or so and got nailed for saying so. Yet I do not see that there is a basis for saying that this move results in a compromising of action parameters. Certainly not a compromising that is in any way to be defined as a negative. What I DO hear is that different people have different tastes.... which I already knew about... hehe. Pianists do adapt... indeed... and what needs to be taken out of their way  is any unevenness in touch parameters. We dont need to start imposing some idea about just how much mass, inertia, or other such issues is enough. Pianists are simply too different for that. I find Ed preferences for SW levels workable, and I find Davids high zones equally workable. They are more different then they are anything else.   David Love Cheers ! -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A> <A HREF="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html">http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html</A>   </body> </html>