Hi Tom,
I appreciate your comment, though I must say my experience has been exactly the opposite: I find the lacquer unstable and not holding while plastic does. Is it because I've worked in a humid climate where lacquer "perms" drop as readily as the hair salon kind? I apply the plastic to the core, allowing it to get closer to the crown depending on how much brightening is needed. At the core it invariably improves power, definition, and projection better than lacquer at any concentration. I've applied lacquer up to and over the crown, but never the plastic because it causes too much contact noise. Hammering the crown affects lacquer much more than the plastic in my experience.
To use your metaphor, for me the plastic at the core is the soup stock (where the body of the flavor is) and lacquer the salt and pepper.
Our perspectives may be different because my target tone is that of denser hammers with needled shoulders. Mentally (and aurally), I work the tone from the core (projection) to the surface (brightness), which gives me the right tonal gradient and highest power ceiling. I avoid all hardeners on the surface because they flatten the gradient, but if the hammer is a cottonball, I would soak its outer layers with a lacquer solution before ever applying the plastic to the crown.
I find the way you describe tonal characteristics via syllables very interesting. Your syllables, "Wa, BA, DA, and TA," describe brightness and impact noise. The syllables I focus on describe what the bloom sounds like: I prefer "oo," "oh," and even "ah," whereas "ee" or "eh" are nasal and unsatisfying. Those, of course, are not only a function of the hammers, but the whole piano, particularly the belly. What's interesting is combining your consonants with my vowels. You get a deep and dark "Woo", an American vintage grand "Boh", a lighter but beautiful European "Daa", and a nasty and nasal, short-sustained "Tee" or "Teh." Is this the new "dictionary of piano sound"? :-)
I agree with you that plastic can constrain the felt and suppress projection (but so can lacquer if overapplied). Plastic can also make needling the felt all but impossible if overdone. One has to learn when to stop and not see either lacquer or plastic as a panacea.
-------------------------------------------
Mario Igrec
http://www.pianosinsideout.com -------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------- Original Message:
Sent: 08-25-2013 06:30
From: Thomas Servinsky
Subject: acetone and plastic as hammer hardener
Kent B
I see a big difference in usage between lacquer solutions and the plastic/acetone solutions. The lacquer solution is much better served when increase of mass to the sound is needed. The plastic/acetone solution is best served when stronger articulation is needed.
In other words, both have their place in voicing. The lacquer solution remains much longer and work best when the solution is in the inner and lower portions of the hammer. The plastic/acetone, which is more of a temporary measure, seems to work best on the crown in very small doses. If dealing with a crown application, I would be starting with a very light solution first. Visually the solution should look opaque with a hint of white. If your solution is stark white then this will be much too strong for a crown application. You can always add more plastic if the solution is too weak.
That being said, if increasing the strength of articulation is the desired goal, then apply only a drop or 2 on the crown. And more specifically try applying only on the far right string groove first. This will give just a hint of brightness and clarity, but still allow the remaining part of the hammer to remain as it was. I use this technique when trying to illustrate more contrast with the una chordal voicing.
Think of using the acetone solution as adding salt to your food. A dash of salt is usually all that is needed to bring out flavor. Same goes with using the plastic/acetone solution. Just a little is usually enough to bring out more clarity in the articulated portion of the tone.
And other way of looking at articulation is try mouthing the consonants "Wa, BA, DA, and TA" The Wa sound has more of wooshing articulation. The Ba, which I consider to be the ideal for most pianos, has a more solidified sound but with a lot of bounce. Da starts to become more harsh and firm. The TA is extremely harsh and aggressive. Most times the need is to go from a Wa to Ba sound. But nothing is worse that leap frogging to the TA sound and then needing to work backwards. Thus knowing your solution's strength with predictability will enable more control with voicing solution applications.
My experience has found that light lacquer solutions seem to work best in the inner core and lower portions of the hammer. The result is a stronger fundamental and mass to the sound. Lighter solutions (8:1 or thinner) also seem to allow the hammer to continue flexing throughout the hammer/string collision. Of course this is all predicated on what make of hammer felt you are dealing with. If you are dealing with a brand new set of Steinway hammers, a very heavy solution of lacquer ( 3:1 for the first application) will be needed. If its a set of Steinway hammers that are several years old and some sprucing up is in order, than a very light solution of 10:1 will all this needed help things along.
Plastic/acetone solutions used in the same area tend to bind the felt more and solidify the hammer. Although the first reaction is that the tone has improved, I've found in contrary, the piano tone actually projects less. My theory is that the plastic/acetone solution inhibits the flexing of the hammer more than a light lacquer solution. Again, both solutions have their place in voicing but with 2 entirely different results and goals.
My take on the mysteries of piano tone.
------------------------------------------- Tom Servinsky
-------------------------------------------