<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; =
charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Several Points:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>David Love</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> <BR><EM>This is the heart of Ed McMorrows thinking. He would =
also add
that friction is quite reduced with lower hammer weights, though he does =
not
formally work this into his equation. However, while F=m*a is =
quite simple
in itself and has led Ed and others to believe that the mass reduction =
of a
lighter hammer can be sufficiently compensated for by increased =
acceleration,
many years experience with this approach has not born that claim out. =
One need
do no more complicated experiment then to take a hammer from key 88 and =
lead it
to the same weight as key 1 and exchange the two to begin confirming =
that things
are not so simple. Voice all you want, or use different hammers all you =
want,
and there is still a difference in sound. Perhaps its as simple as =
saying
velocity simply does not compensate for mass in the sense we seem to =
assume
here. <BR> </EM></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
TYPE="CITE"><EM>Thats an interesting claim, tho I dont see it =
qualified in any
sense. And I have heard the opposite being stated, equally unqualified =
I might
add. I wonder if you might try and justify all this a bit in terms of =
the
mechanics involved. Just why do you think a more massive hammer =
effects no
change (or a negative one perhaps) at pppp ? And how can you show that =
a light
hammer can be more reliably controlled ? </EM></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><EM>very
curioius. </EM>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
TYPE="CITE"><EM>I dont think it has been shown that hammer rebound =
from the
string is mostly a function of its mass. Rather I think it has been =
shown that
the hammers resiliancy has the most determinant function in this =
regard.
Neither do I understand that a lighter hammer allows any particular =
greater
freedom in terms of key dip, or blow. These parameters vary quite =
enough as a
matter of course already. We see everything from a little over 9 mm =
dip to
circa 11 mm dip coming out of factories, and from as little as 42 mm =
blow to
as much as 50. There is in fact no standard by which to define what a
"compromise of keydip, blow or both" is. </EM></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><EM>Lowering
the ratio will make it lighter at the key, and yet it will it will =
travel less
distance with equal key movement, and thus more slowly at equal key =
speed. But
because it seems lighter at the key..... the finger playing will have a =
tendancy
to compensate in order to achieve similiar degrees of sound volume. =
</EM>
<P dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><EM>And
its the pianists fingers this is in the end all about. It might be =
instructive
to simply change the ratio and compensate the action regulation with a =
change in
blow. This would keep key dip and hammer mass constant in an attempt to =
better
identify the effect of a change in ratio on the perception of touch. =
</EM>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
TYPE="CITE"><EM> <FONT size=-1>Those are my thoughts. =
Feel free to
comment.</FONT><FONT size=-1>David Love</FONT></EM></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><BR><EM> me
too :) </EM>
<P dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><EM>--
<BR>Richard Brekne <BR>RPT, N.P.T.F. <BR>UiB, Bergen, Norway <BR></EM><A =
href="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no"><EM>mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</EM>=
</A><EM>
<BR></EM><A
href="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html"><EM>http://home.b=
roadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html</EM></A><EM>
<BR> </EM></P></BODY></HTML>