Pianotech

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

There are three main felts from Ronsen: Bacon, Weichert, Wurzen. That's in order of softness. I haven't had to order anything softer so far.

I agree that "voice down" produces a very different tone and timbre than "voice up" and stability can be different, though not always, especially when you compare with hammers that have received too much lacquer.

For situations where I definitely want to err on the softer side I choose Bacon Felt and use that now on most smaller Steinways and similar pianos. When I want more I go to Wurzen usually skipping Weichert  

For hardening I use two basic solutions and Pianotek's HammerLac: 20% solution for the bass and tenor, 30% for the treble starting usually around F5. One application only saturating the entire hammer then let the hammer play in for 100 hours or so.

I tend to avoid lacquered hammers on concert grand a or other higher impedance pianos. 

Less is more whether it's needles or lacquer IMO. 

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

There are three main felts from Ronsen: Bacon, Weichert, Wurzen. That's in order of softness. I haven't had to order anything softer so far.

I agree that "voice down" produces a very different tone and timbre than "voice up" and stability can be different, though not always, especially when you compare with hammers that have received too much lacquer.

For situations where I definitely want to err on the softer side I choose Bacon Felt and use that now on most smaller Steinways and similar pianos. When I want more I go to Wurzen usually skipping Weichert  

For hardening I use two basic solutions and Pianotek's HammerLac: 20% solution for the bass and tenor, 30% for the treble starting usually around F5. One application only saturating the entire hammer then let the hammer play in for 100 hours or so.

I tend to avoid lacquered hammers on concert grand a or other higher impedance pianos. 

Less is more whether it's needles or lacquer IMO. 

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

There are three main felts from Ronsen: Bacon, Weichert, Wurzen. That's in order of softness. I haven't had to order anything softer so far.

I agree that "voice down" produces a very different tone and timbre than "voice up" and stability can be different, though not always, especially when you compare with hammers that have received too much lacquer.

For situations where I definitely want to err on the softer side I choose Bacon Felt and use that now on most smaller Steinways and similar pianos. When I want more I go to Wurzen usually skipping Weichert  

For hardening I use two basic solutions and Pianotek's HammerLac: 20% solution for the bass and tenor, 30% for the treble starting usually around F5. One application only saturating the entire hammer then let the hammer play in for 100 hours or so.

I tend to avoid lacquered hammers on concert grand a or other higher impedance pianos. 

Less is more whether it's needles or lacquer IMO. 

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

There are three main felts from Ronsen: Bacon, Weichert, Wurzen. That's in order of softness. I haven't had to order anything softer so far.

I agree that "voice down" produces a very different tone and timbre than "voice up" and stability can be different, though not always, especially when you compare with hammers that have received too much lacquer.

For situations where I definitely want to err on the softer side I choose Bacon Felt and use that now on most smaller Steinways and similar pianos. When I want more I go to Wurzen usually skipping Weichert  

For hardening I use two basic solutions and Pianotek's HammerLac: 20% solution for the bass and tenor, 30% for the treble starting usually around F5. One application only saturating the entire hammer then let the hammer play in for 100 hours or so.

I tend to avoid lacquered hammers on concert grand a or other higher impedance pianos. 

Less is more whether it's needles or lacquer IMO. 

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

David,

100 hours of "play-in"? How do you explain to the pianist that the piano will sound fine 100 hours after their performance?

Roger

There are three main felts from Ronsen: Bacon, Weichert, Wurzen. That's in order of softness. I haven't had to order anything softer so far.

I agree that "voice down" produces a very different tone and timbre than "voice up" and stability can be different, though not always, especially when you compare with hammers that have received too much lacquer.

For situations where I definitely want to err on the softer side I choose Bacon Felt and use that now on most smaller Steinways and similar pianos. When I want more I go to Wurzen usually skipping Weichert  

For hardening I use two basic solutions and Pianotek's HammerLac: 20% solution for the bass and tenor, 30% for the treble starting usually around F5. One application only saturating the entire hammer then let the hammer play in for 100 hours or so.

I tend to avoid lacquered hammers on concert grand a or other higher impedance pianos. 

Less is more whether it's needles or lacquer IMO. 

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

David,

I concur with your statements. I might add to your comment about partials and their formation. The way I visualize it, a soft hammer dwells on the string longer killing any partials that may be forming in the longitude mode leaving only the vertically formed fundamental in motion.

Also, there is a teensy-weensy error in our scientific usage of "impedance matching." We have the tendency to refer matching "hammer impedance to soundboard impedance" as a component of the voicing goal. Technically, that is incorrect. We are creating a mismatch of impedance of hammer to soundboard. If the hammer and soundboard were a perfect match, all we would hear is a "thud", or a "snap" because all the energy would be immediately absorbed by the soundboard. The soundboard/string assembly exhibits a significantly higher impedance than the hammer. Also, it is the high impedance that enables the hammer to bounce back.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

David,

I concur with your statements. I might add to your comment about partials and their formation. The way I visualize it, a soft hammer dwells on the string longer killing any partials that may be forming in the longitude mode leaving only the vertically formed fundamental in motion.

Also, there is a teensy-weensy error in our scientific usage of "impedance matching." We have the tendency to refer matching "hammer impedance to soundboard impedance" as a component of the voicing goal. Technically, that is incorrect. We are creating a mismatch of impedance of hammer to soundboard. If the hammer and soundboard were a perfect match, all we would hear is a "thud", or a "snap" because all the energy would be immediately absorbed by the soundboard. The soundboard/string assembly exhibits a significantly higher impedance than the hammer. Also, it is the high impedance that enables the hammer to bounce back.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Let me add that, yes, the softer hammer dwells longer and tends to filter out partials, especially high partials and particularly where the period of the frequency coincides with the dwell time as it does in the lower capo section especially.  More mass does the same thing--increases dwell time.  Moreover, a hammer with too much mass delivering too much energy, that must be "voiced down" will tend to kill upper partials even more!  That being said, there are some pianos that will take more mass in the capo section as long as the hammer is firm enough.  Those tend to be high tension pianos.

So I agree with Jim, basically, that controlling mass in the upper part of the piano is important.  So is controlling the hammer profile (how much felt over the molding).  Large, soft hammers don't work well in the capo section of most pianos even when you harden them.  The reasons for that may have to do with the dynamics of hammer rebounding and what hardeners for that process.  But I digress.  Hardening those hammers addresses the softness but it doesn't address the mass.  If  you want more clarity in the treble section and if the hammer allows it, reduce mass and reduce the profile.  It is interesting to note that many "Steinway concert techs" do exactly that first thing when they come to a concert instrument.  That being said, at a certain point there are diminishing returns reducing the mass in the upper part of the piano.  We still need some percussive power there and a hammer which is too light can end up producing something that has clarity but is a bit thin sounding.  I think you can go too far, especially in the lower capo section.  

David,

I concur with your statements. I might add to your comment about partials and their formation. The way I visualize it, a soft hammer dwells on the string longer killing any partials that may be forming in the longitude mode leaving only the vertically formed fundamental in motion.

Also, there is a teensy-weensy error in our scientific usage of "impedance matching." We have the tendency to refer matching "hammer impedance to soundboard impedance" as a component of the voicing goal. Technically, that is incorrect. We are creating a mismatch of impedance of hammer to soundboard. If the hammer and soundboard were a perfect match, all we would hear is a "thud", or a "snap" because all the energy would be immediately absorbed by the soundboard. The soundboard/string assembly exhibits a significantly higher impedance than the hammer. Also, it is the high impedance that enables the hammer to bounce back.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

 David L< I have put Ronsen hammers on high impedance bellies and while that happened to be what the customer wanted (the case I'm thinking of is a Ronsen Wurzen hammer on a Bosendorfer 225), I found it somewhat lacking.  The player was fine because they wanted the piano toned down quite a bit.  But for me the piano no longer delivered the range that I would expect from that piano.

Impedance of a board system is one part of the choice of hammer decision.  Another  equally important determining  factors in hammer choice are the piano's intended venue(in this case a home living room) and client taste.  This means the impedance point, while valid in certain circumstances, is not exclusive. There are multiple valid  defining factors, and each may require a different hammer choice.

David's paragraph above speaks precisely to this;  The player wanted the piano toned down , and the tech would have preferred something different, because he knew the piano had the potential to create a different tonal palette. That describes a discrepancy in aesthetic choices.  Hammer choice will follow the aesthetic choices.

My point is, in a huge percentage of home or small venue jobs, we often, inappropriately, as technicians, impose, or wish to impose, our tonal aesthetic upon the wishes of the customers...not realizing, that the client is looking for something the tech doesn't understand very well, or the tech may understand, but does not value.

And...the  discrepancy between these aesthetic choices,  comes down to a hammer choice...ie, there are multiple valid hammer choices irrespective of impedance questions.

One of the most poignant examples of this, for me,  was when I followed up a well known tech...an excellent and nationally known tech. The customer was extremely unhappy about the excessive power and brash attack profile of his old board Steinert 5'-10" grand, which just received a new set of hammers and voicing. The Abel hammers were absolutely inappropriate for that piano and space...he hated the sound of the piano. I came in and brought it way down without killing the attack, as best I could.  As he was handing me the check, after I was done, he stopped, stared off into the distance, and plaintively said  " why wouldn't he listen to me? "...referring to the previous tech who presumably set the instrument up this way on purpose.  As it turns out, as David suggests, the voicing did not hold. It took too much needle work to hold. For the long term, the hammers were inappropriate and he ended up giving up on the piano, and playing his digital keyboard. .. a real losing situation all around.

So this partially supports David's position; hammer choice must be appropriate.  But not entirely. Though the hammers were inappropriate as per David's impedance comments, the hammers were also inappropriate, because the tonal goals from the start, were inappropriate for the living room venue, and client's tonal goals. Again and again the dicotomy between large venue voicing goals and home venue voicing goals are often incompatible.  And...often, tonal goals that are appropriate in many many home situations or small venue situations, or chamber music situations, are simply not valued or supported by tech training. In fact, tech training actively denigrates  small venue tonal voicing goals.

A home venue or true chamber venue is not a concerto venue, and we as technicians are not well attuned to this difference. A home piano is not a concert D with a thyroid problem. It  is a fundamentally different instrument, chasing a seriously different aesthetic than a concerto instrument does.  We don't teach this. We don't support this thought in any classes or PTG info I have ever attended or read... We do not differentiate  the way the sound is experienced at the keyboard in a small space, privately experienced,  as opposed to the way sound is experienced in  concerto space, publically experienced.

So, when I said I don't support the impedance match (or more correctly mismatch) concept of hammer choice any more, what I really meant  was, that, as the OP is trying to discuss,  the qualities denser and  heavy hammers will impose on the system, do not match the qualities most small venue ears are looking for, irrespective of the piano make or belly.  Large venue power requires high partial  heavy attack. Home venue ears are often  looking to experience a sound that does not jar or cause one to recoil from sound pressure. They are looking for a caress, even at high amplitude, and its doable.  On the other hand, the concerto pianist's ears are looking for a sound that will penetrate. The concerto ears are looking for a certain degree of attack pain, shear sound pressure,  which tells them, from experience, they are projecting a good distance.

So in my opinion,  the question the OP brings up,  is more about venue appropriate choice of hammers, as opposed to belly imposed choice of hammers.  The choice is driven by venue.  The least dense hammers will function  well on any belly in a small venue situation, for clients who are looking for a private or chamber  sized sound. Private sized sound does not mean lacking amplitude, or power. It means the sound as experienced at the key board must have clear attack definition but not hurt as a concert instrument does.   

Success with the Bacons and perhaps the newer Weikert soft version, requires reduced weight hammers (still in the normal to light modern range), slightly increased leverages, and shaping to a more pronounced point starting in the low tenor and becoming quite sharp in the treble. Longevity of the hammer, even with the reduced strike points, will be excellent as long as the hammers are kept on the lighter side and contain less dense felt.  So, it's not just the board's impedance calling the shots, but system wide considerations and aesthetics calling the soft hammer shots.  I will go as far as to say, for the venues and client tastes I am speaking about, dense heavy hammers will be a continual pain in the  butt to keep chasing after, and therefore I no longer ever use them, for these venues.

As a final point, when David speaks about too soft a hammer requiring too much doping,  this will only be true, if the soft hammer is asked to perform concerto duty or the large venue aesthetic.  My soft hammer doping consists of tiny amounts of B72 in ethanol, and in parts of the scale no doping at all.  

Let me add that, yes, the softer hammer dwells longer and tends to filter out partials, especially high partials and particularly where the period of the frequency coincides with the dwell time as it does in the lower capo section especially.  More mass does the same thing--increases dwell time.  Moreover, a hammer with too much mass delivering too much energy, that must be "voiced down" will tend to kill upper partials even more!  That being said, there are some pianos that will take more mass in the capo section as long as the hammer is firm enough.  Those tend to be high tension pianos.

So I agree with Jim, basically, that controlling mass in the upper part of the piano is important.  So is controlling the hammer profile (how much felt over the molding).  Large, soft hammers don't work well in the capo section of most pianos even when you harden them.  The reasons for that may have to do with the dynamics of hammer rebounding and what hardeners for that process.  But I digress.  Hardening those hammers addresses the softness but it doesn't address the mass.  If  you want more clarity in the treble section and if the hammer allows it, reduce mass and reduce the profile.  It is interesting to note that many "Steinway concert techs" do exactly that first thing when they come to a concert instrument.  That being said, at a certain point there are diminishing returns reducing the mass in the upper part of the piano.  We still need some percussive power there and a hammer which is too light can end up producing something that has clarity but is a bit thin sounding.  I think you can go too far, especially in the lower capo section.  

David,

I concur with your statements. I might add to your comment about partials and their formation. The way I visualize it, a soft hammer dwells on the string longer killing any partials that may be forming in the longitude mode leaving only the vertically formed fundamental in motion.

Also, there is a teensy-weensy error in our scientific usage of "impedance matching." We have the tendency to refer matching "hammer impedance to soundboard impedance" as a component of the voicing goal. Technically, that is incorrect. We are creating a mismatch of impedance of hammer to soundboard. If the hammer and soundboard were a perfect match, all we would hear is a "thud", or a "snap" because all the energy would be immediately absorbed by the soundboard. The soundboard/string assembly exhibits a significantly higher impedance than the hammer. Also, it is the high impedance that enables the hammer to bounce back.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Impedance of a board system is one part of the choice of hammer decision.  Another  equally important determining  factors in hammer choice are the piano's intended venue(in this case a home living room) and client taste.  This means the impedance point, while valid in certain circumstances, is not exclusive. There are multiple valid  defining factors, and each may require a different hammer choice.

David's paragraph above speaks precisely to this;  The player wanted the piano toned down , and the tech would have preferred something different, because he knew the piano had the potential to create a different tonal palette. That describes a discrepancy in aesthetic choices.  Hammer choice will follow the aesthetic choices.

My point is, in a huge percentage of home or small venue jobs, we often, inappropriately, as technicians, impose, or wish to impose, our tonal aesthetic upon the wishes of the customers...not realizing, that the client is looking for something the tech doesn't understand very well, or the tech may understand, but does not value.

And...the  discrepancy between these aesthetic choices,  comes down to a hammer choice...ie, there are multiple valid hammer choices irrespective of impedance questions.

Aesthetic choices and accommodations are certainly a part of what we do.  I don't deny that and I certainly don't impose my tastes on anyone.  In fact, I take great pains to determine just what the customer tastes are in advance by putting on samples and discussing their tonal tastes and goals.  However, my point was that voicing is in large part an impedance matching issue.  If we want something darker and less powerful then we choose the hammer that delivers less energy to the system, a system which may, in fact, be able to accommodate something more powerful by it's very nature.  That we make a different choice or voice a piano to one extreme or the other doesn't change the fact of what a given piano can accommodate.  If our goal is to err on the dark side (no pun intended) then that's pretty easy.  If we're trying to explore the upper range that a piano has to offer that can be a bit trickier. 

One of the most poignant examples of this, for me,  was when I followed up a well known tech...an excellent and nationally known tech. The customer was extremely unhappy about the excessive power and brash attack profile of his old board Steinert 5'-10" grand, which just received a new set of hammers and voicing. The Abel hammers were absolutely inappropriate for that piano and space...he hated the sound of the piano. I came in and brought it way down without killing the attack, as best I could.  As he was handing me the check, after I was done, he stopped, stared off into the distance, and plaintively said  " why wouldn't he listen to me? "...referring to the previous tech who presumably set the instrument up this way on purpose.  As it turns out, as David suggests, the voicing did not hold. It took too much needle work to hold. For the long term, the hammers were inappropriate and he ended up giving up on the piano, and playing his digital keyboard. .. a real losing situation all around.

An all too common experience for me with older Steinway pianos and Abel and Renner hammers.  

So this partially supports David's position; hammer choice must be appropriate.  But not entirely. Though the hammers were inappropriate as per David's impedance comments, the hammers were also inappropriate, because the tonal goals from the start, were inappropriate for the living room venue, and client's tonal goals. Again and again the dicotomy between large venue voicing goals and home venue voicing goals are often incompatible.  And...often, tonal goals that are appropriate in many many home situations or small venue situations, or chamber music situations, are simply not valued or supported by tech training. In fact, tech training actively denigrates  small venue tonal voicing goals.

A home venue or true chamber venue is not a concerto venue, and we as technicians are not well attuned to this difference. A home piano is not a concert D with a thyroid problem. It  is a fundamentally different instrument, chasing a seriously different aesthetic than a concerto instrument does.  We don't teach this. We don't support this thought in any classes or PTG info I have ever attended or read... We do not differentiate  the way the sound is experienced at the keyboard in a small space, privately experienced,  as opposed to the way sound is experienced in  concerto space, publically experienced.

I don't agree with that completely.  I have certainly pointed out on several occasions that large venue concert grands are a different animal entirely and require a different approach.  A piano that needs to be heard at row 50 in a 3000 seat hall is treated very differently than one in a small living room even if they are both concert instruments.  I work on many "D"s in various size venues and the tonal goal will vary not only with the venue but with the player.  But it's not a binary choice.  It's not either i am setting this up for a small venue or a 3000 seat hall.  And again, the customer's own taste doesn't change the fact of what the piano can handle, within reason.  It simply adds another factor that may override other considerations.  I can't think of any living room situations in which the pianist wants a piano set up for a 3000 seat hall.  But again, the hammer that can drive that piano well enough in a 3000 seat hall without going to extraordinary measures will likely be different than one that needs to be held back a bit for a small living room.  Moreover, a piano that is designed for a 3000 seat hall is pretty easy to knock back down because it's already a high impedance system.  In that case, reducing the energy input yields results with little trouble.  The converse would not be true.  Using very light and soft hammers on a concert piano for that venue will present problems in achieving adequate power.

So, when I said I don't support the impedance match (or more correctly mismatch) concept of hammer choice any more, what I really meant  was, that, as the OP is trying to discuss,  the qualities denser and  heavy hammers will impose on the system, do not match the qualities most small venue ears are looking for, irrespective of the piano make or belly.  Large venue power requires high partial  heavy attack. Home venue ears are often  looking to experience a sound that does not jar or cause one to recoil from sound pressure. They are looking for a caress, even at high amplitude, and its doable.  On the other hand, the concerto pianist's ears are looking for a sound that will penetrate. The concerto ears are looking for a certain degree of attack pain, shear sound pressure,  which tells them, from experience, they are projecting a good distance.

No disagreement there.   

So in my opinion,  the question the OP brings up,  is more about venue appropriate choice of hammers, as opposed to belly imposed choice of hammers.  The choice is driven by venue.  The least dense hammers will function  well on any belly in a small venue situation, for clients who are looking for a private or chamber  sized sound. Private sized sound does not mean lacking amplitude, or power. It means the sound as experienced at the key board must have clear attack definition but not hurt as a concert instrument does.

That's a bit binary for me.  Pianos are not either concerto pianos or small venue pianos.  The requirements fall in a range.  The concerto piano is the rarity as is the Hamburg D in a small living room.  No one is arguing that you can't work with something to get it closer to the demands of the situation.  That, after all, is our job and hopefully we do it well.  But that doesn't mean that there aren't better choices and those choices will largely be dictated by the piano--scale and belly.  The venue and personal taste I consider other factors, which isn't to say they aren't important, but the limits of what we can do are first dictated by the belly and hammer interaction.  You don't have to go too far in the other direction to see that: a belly that requires a light and soft hammer that someone puts a heavy hard on one.  That's a bit more difficult to deal with and is probably the more common experience.

Success with the Bacons and perhaps the newer Weikert soft version, requires reduced weight hammers (still in the normal to light modern range), slightly increased leverages, and shaping to a more pronounced point starting in the low tenor and becoming quite sharp in the treble. Longevity of the hammer, even with the reduced strike points, will be excellent as long as the hammers are kept on the lighter side and contain less dense felt.  So, it's not just the board's impedance calling the shots, but system wide considerations and aesthetics calling the soft hammer shots.  I will go as far as to say, for the venues and client tastes I am speaking about, dense heavy hammers will be a continual pain in the  butt to keep chasing after, and therefore I no longer ever use them, for these venues.

Interestingly, the piano I referenced, the Bos 225 with Ronsen hammers, is wearing through the hammers much more quickly than i would like.  The player, a very good pianist, does play a lot but in a couple of years I've had to reshape the hammers twice.  That wasn't the case with the previous, manufacturer's hammer.  Why that hammer is wearing faster is a good question.  I'm inclined to think that it has to do with a slight mismatch between the density of the felt of that hammer and the higher tension string scale.  In short, the strings give less than the hammer does and in the process the hammers are wearing a bit faster.  Can't be sure though.  As far as how that piano is now set up, the customer is happy, thrilled maybe.  But I'm not sure others would be.  I happen to take care of several Bos 225s.  One of them is in a small concert venue (100 seats) in which they want something definitely not pushing the power envelope.  Yet that piano is several steps above the other one in terms of breadth of palette, controllable, not harsh, and, I dare say, a better representation of what that piano is.  Putting on that lighter softer Ronsen hammer is quite pleasing to that player, but it's made the piano into something else that's not quite in keeping with the overall design.  I don't fault him and I don't argue with his taste. But it's a different instrument now and I think many would find it lacking in expressive range--which doesn't necessarily mean power alone.   Had he been able to convey to me his tonal taste at the outset I'd probably have suggested something else (meaning a different piano).  But some of what people like is what they're used to.  It's a complex interaction.

As a final point, when David speaks about too soft a hammer requiring too much doping,  this will only be true, if the soft hammer is asked to perform concerto duty or the large venue aesthetic.  My soft hammer doping consists of tiny amounts of B72 in ethanol, and in parts of the scale no doping at all.

My reference to a hammer needing too much doping was to do with concert pianos that have large, soft, bulky hammers on them.  That would be your typical NY Steinway D.  The amount of lacquer on that hammer for a reasonable performance situation is excessive, IMO, for any hammer.  Those hammers do not last that long, or don't respond well for very long.  The felt tends to turn to dust after awhile (if you can even call it felt at that point) and voicing is very difficult to maintain at any level.  I've had much more success using  a denser hammer to begin with (often a Hamburg Renner or a Renner Blue Point or even Renner Blue, Gr 4 or Gr 5.  With a healthy and sturdy belly it's quite easy to voice that hammer down to whatever you like, if you so choose.  But put a smaller, softer, lighter hammer on there and you will be hard pressed (no pun intended) to achieve the power and palette range that you would expect out of that piano.  

Any hammer we choose has some leeway, of course, in terms of what it will provide.  That's why we voice them--to refine that match.  But when we choose a hammer we should be aiming for the basic range of what the piano needs to produce +/-.  If the player requirements are outside of what we might ordinarily expect, as was the case with the Bos 225 and the Ronsen hammers, then it makes sense to choose something that is closer to the goal.  But impedance matching is clearly part of that formula whether we admit it or not.  

Fortunately, many pianos fall into some middle ground and we can find something that will work reasonably well as long as we are willing to maintain it.  Harder hammers require more maintenance, in my opinion, and, like you, I generally prefer to work up to the desired level or even allow the hammer to develop on its own as long as we start out within reasonable striking distance.  I should add that 90% of the hammer jobs I do are on Steinway pianos so I'm accustomed to that belly old and new.  But we shouldn't fall into the trap that because we can make several different hammers "work" therefore it doesn't matter what hammer you use.  It does matter.  Each hammer responds differently and produces a different relationship between the attack and sustain envelope, has it's own natural resilience which affects timbre, and develops differently over time.  I've taken my share of relatively new hammers off of pianos that were just not going to produce what the player wanted and replaced them with something better.  Not a better hammer, necessarily, but a better match.

On a final note, I think the idea that we, or the industry, pushes the hard brash sound is not really accurate.  i would say at least 95% of the complaints I get from pianos that I service the first time is that they are too bright and too harsh.  But I do get the occasional person who likes it bright and percussive.  I try and determine that before a begin any voicing procedure for them and certainly before I select a replacement hammer.  Then I assess the belly and the hammer choices together to see what gets us close so that required manipulations are reasonably in reach.  i don't want to be putting 100 stitches in a hammer or juicing it up with more than one application.

The discussion about products we use for that is another chapter in this but I think it is important.  I'm not sold on B72, I think it's just the latest fad, honestly.  The bottom line for me with products is that they must remain flexible after they dry or cure.  I don't want any crystalline formations in the hammer and no little pings and zings to chase, nothing that makes the fiber brittle, and so i don't use anything that starts out or ends up as a hard plastic.  That includes table top lacquers, keytop solutions, B72 products, sanding sealers or even shellac.  I want the hammer fibers stiffened and some density added to the hammer if it needs it but i want the fiber to remain flexible and resilient.  Anything short of that is counterproductive, in my view.  And chasing some solution at 3:00 and a different solution at 11:00 and yet a different solution on the strike point is just overthinking it, IMO.  If the hammer isn't stiff enough, make it stiffer,  If it's too stiff, make it less stiff.  Needle work, I admit, is a bit more complicated.  Learning how the hammer responds, feeling for hard felt through a voicing tool, knowing what part of the hammer to address and what it does is tricker in a hammer that's been pressed in a somewhat unnatural way in which heat renders the outside of the hammer stiffer than it would be otherwise and we have to address a sort of backwards consistency.  But that is another chapter for another day.  It is the weekend, after all.

 David L< I have put Ronsen hammers on high impedance bellies and while that happened to be what the customer wanted (the case I'm thinking of is a Ronsen Wurzen hammer on a Bosendorfer 225), I found it somewhat lacking.  The player was fine because they wanted the piano toned down quite a bit.  But for me the piano no longer delivered the range that I would expect from that piano.

Impedance of a board system is one part of the choice of hammer decision.  Another  equally important determining  factors in hammer choice are the piano's intended venue(in this case a home living room) and client taste.  This means the impedance point, while valid in certain circumstances, is not exclusive. There are multiple valid  defining factors, and each may require a different hammer choice.

David's paragraph above speaks precisely to this;  The player wanted the piano toned down , and the tech would have preferred something different, because he knew the piano had the potential to create a different tonal palette. That describes a discrepancy in aesthetic choices.  Hammer choice will follow the aesthetic choices.

My point is, in a huge percentage of home or small venue jobs, we often, inappropriately, as technicians, impose, or wish to impose, our tonal aesthetic upon the wishes of the customers...not realizing, that the client is looking for something the tech doesn't understand very well, or the tech may understand, but does not value.

And...the  discrepancy between these aesthetic choices,  comes down to a hammer choice...ie, there are multiple valid hammer choices irrespective of impedance questions.

One of the most poignant examples of this, for me,  was when I followed up a well known tech...an excellent and nationally known tech. The customer was extremely unhappy about the excessive power and brash attack profile of his old board Steinert 5'-10" grand, which just received a new set of hammers and voicing. The Abel hammers were absolutely inappropriate for that piano and space...he hated the sound of the piano. I came in and brought it way down without killing the attack, as best I could.  As he was handing me the check, after I was done, he stopped, stared off into the distance, and plaintively said  " why wouldn't he listen to me? "...referring to the previous tech who presumably set the instrument up this way on purpose.  As it turns out, as David suggests, the voicing did not hold. It took too much needle work to hold. For the long term, the hammers were inappropriate and he ended up giving up on the piano, and playing his digital keyboard. .. a real losing situation all around.

So this partially supports David's position; hammer choice must be appropriate.  But not entirely. Though the hammers were inappropriate as per David's impedance comments, the hammers were also inappropriate, because the tonal goals from the start, were inappropriate for the living room venue, and client's tonal goals. Again and again the dicotomy between large venue voicing goals and home venue voicing goals are often incompatible.  And...often, tonal goals that are appropriate in many many home situations or small venue situations, or chamber music situations, are simply not valued or supported by tech training. In fact, tech training actively denigrates  small venue tonal voicing goals.

A home venue or true chamber venue is not a concerto venue, and we as technicians are not well attuned to this difference. A home piano is not a concert D with a thyroid problem. It  is a fundamentally different instrument, chasing a seriously different aesthetic than a concerto instrument does.  We don't teach this. We don't support this thought in any classes or PTG info I have ever attended or read... We do not differentiate  the way the sound is experienced at the keyboard in a small space, privately experienced,  as opposed to the way sound is experienced in  concerto space, publically experienced.

So, when I said I don't support the impedance match (or more correctly mismatch) concept of hammer choice any more, what I really meant  was, that, as the OP is trying to discuss,  the qualities denser and  heavy hammers will impose on the system, do not match the qualities most small venue ears are looking for, irrespective of the piano make or belly.  Large venue power requires high partial  heavy attack. Home venue ears are often  looking to experience a sound that does not jar or cause one to recoil from sound pressure. They are looking for a caress, even at high amplitude, and its doable.  On the other hand, the concerto pianist's ears are looking for a sound that will penetrate. The concerto ears are looking for a certain degree of attack pain, shear sound pressure,  which tells them, from experience, they are projecting a good distance.

So in my opinion,  the question the OP brings up,  is more about venue appropriate choice of hammers, as opposed to belly imposed choice of hammers.  The choice is driven by venue.  The least dense hammers will function  well on any belly in a small venue situation, for clients who are looking for a private or chamber  sized sound. Private sized sound does not mean lacking amplitude, or power. It means the sound as experienced at the key board must have clear attack definition but not hurt as a concert instrument does.   

Success with the Bacons and perhaps the newer Weikert soft version, requires reduced weight hammers (still in the normal to light modern range), slightly increased leverages, and shaping to a more pronounced point starting in the low tenor and becoming quite sharp in the treble. Longevity of the hammer, even with the reduced strike points, will be excellent as long as the hammers are kept on the lighter side and contain less dense felt.  So, it's not just the board's impedance calling the shots, but system wide considerations and aesthetics calling the soft hammer shots.  I will go as far as to say, for the venues and client tastes I am speaking about, dense heavy hammers will be a continual pain in the  butt to keep chasing after, and therefore I no longer ever use them, for these venues.

As a final point, when David speaks about too soft a hammer requiring too much doping,  this will only be true, if the soft hammer is asked to perform concerto duty or the large venue aesthetic.  My soft hammer doping consists of tiny amounts of B72 in ethanol, and in parts of the scale no doping at all.  

Let me add that, yes, the softer hammer dwells longer and tends to filter out partials, especially high partials and particularly where the period of the frequency coincides with the dwell time as it does in the lower capo section especially.  More mass does the same thing--increases dwell time.  Moreover, a hammer with too much mass delivering too much energy, that must be "voiced down" will tend to kill upper partials even more!  That being said, there are some pianos that will take more mass in the capo section as long as the hammer is firm enough.  Those tend to be high tension pianos.

So I agree with Jim, basically, that controlling mass in the upper part of the piano is important.  So is controlling the hammer profile (how much felt over the molding).  Large, soft hammers don't work well in the capo section of most pianos even when you harden them.  The reasons for that may have to do with the dynamics of hammer rebounding and what hardeners for that process.  But I digress.  Hardening those hammers addresses the softness but it doesn't address the mass.  If  you want more clarity in the treble section and if the hammer allows it, reduce mass and reduce the profile.  It is interesting to note that many "Steinway concert techs" do exactly that first thing when they come to a concert instrument.  That being said, at a certain point there are diminishing returns reducing the mass in the upper part of the piano.  We still need some percussive power there and a hammer which is too light can end up producing something that has clarity but is a bit thin sounding.  I think you can go too far, especially in the lower capo section.  

David,

I concur with your statements. I might add to your comment about partials and their formation. The way I visualize it, a soft hammer dwells on the string longer killing any partials that may be forming in the longitude mode leaving only the vertically formed fundamental in motion.

Also, there is a teensy-weensy error in our scientific usage of "impedance matching." We have the tendency to refer matching "hammer impedance to soundboard impedance" as a component of the voicing goal. Technically, that is incorrect. We are creating a mismatch of impedance of hammer to soundboard. If the hammer and soundboard were a perfect match, all we would hear is a "thud", or a "snap" because all the energy would be immediately absorbed by the soundboard. The soundboard/string assembly exhibits a significantly higher impedance than the hammer. Also, it is the high impedance that enables the hammer to bounce back.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Let me add that, yes, the softer hammer dwells longer and tends to filter out partials, especially high partials and particularly where the period of the frequency coincides with the dwell time as it does in the lower capo section especially.  More mass does the same thing--increases dwell time.  Moreover, a hammer with too much mass delivering too much energy, that must be "voiced down" will tend to kill upper partials even more!  That being said, there are some pianos that will take more mass in the capo section as long as the hammer is firm enough.  Those tend to be high tension pianos.   

So I agree with Jim, basically, that controlling mass in the upper part of the piano is important.  So is controlling the hammer profile (how much felt over the molding).  Large, soft hammers don't work well in the capo section of most pianos even when you harden them.  The reasons for that may have to do with the dynamics of hammer rebounding and what hardeners for that process.  But I digress.  Hardening those hammers addresses the softness but it doesn't address the mass.  If  you want more clarity in the treble section and if the hammer allows it, reduce mass and reduce the profile.  It is interesting to note that many "Steinway concert techs" do exactly that first thing when they come to a concert instrument.  That being said, at a certain point there are diminishing returns reducing the mass in the upper part of the piano.  We still need some percussive power there and a hammer which is too light can end up producing something that has clarity but is a bit thin sounding.  I think you can go too far, especially in the lower capo section.  

David,

I concur with your statements. I might add to your comment about partials and their formation. The way I visualize it, a soft hammer dwells on the string longer killing any partials that may be forming in the longitude mode leaving only the vertically formed fundamental in motion.

Also, there is a teensy-weensy error in our scientific usage of "impedance matching." We have the tendency to refer matching "hammer impedance to soundboard impedance" as a component of the voicing goal. Technically, that is incorrect. We are creating a mismatch of impedance of hammer to soundboard. If the hammer and soundboard were a perfect match, all we would hear is a "thud", or a "snap" because all the energy would be immediately absorbed by the soundboard. The soundboard/string assembly exhibits a significantly higher impedance than the hammer. Also, it is the high impedance that enables the hammer to bounce back.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Let me add that, yes, the softer hammer dwells longer and tends to filter out partials, especially high partials and particularly where the period of the frequency coincides with the dwell time as it does in the lower capo section especially.  More mass does the same thing--increases dwell time.  Moreover, a hammer with too much mass delivering too much energy, that must be "voiced down" will tend to kill upper partials even more!  That being said, there are some pianos that will take more mass in the capo section as long as the hammer is firm enough.  Those tend to be high tension pianos.

So I agree with Jim, basically, that controlling mass in the upper part of the piano is important.  So is controlling the hammer profile (how much felt over the molding).  Large, soft hammers don't work well in the capo section of most pianos even when you harden them.  The reasons for that may have to do with the dynamics of hammer rebounding and what hardeners for that process.  But I digress.  Hardening those hammers addresses the softness but it doesn't address the mass.  If  you want more clarity in the treble section and if the hammer allows it, reduce mass and reduce the profile.  It is interesting to note that many "Steinway concert techs" do exactly that first thing when they come to a concert instrument.  That being said, at a certain point there are diminishing returns reducing the mass in the upper part of the piano.  We still need some percussive power there and a hammer which is too light can end up producing something that has clarity but is a bit thin sounding.  I think you can go too far, especially in the lower capo section.  

David,

I concur with your statements. I might add to your comment about partials and their formation. The way I visualize it, a soft hammer dwells on the string longer killing any partials that may be forming in the longitude mode leaving only the vertically formed fundamental in motion.

Also, there is a teensy-weensy error in our scientific usage of "impedance matching." We have the tendency to refer matching "hammer impedance to soundboard impedance" as a component of the voicing goal. Technically, that is incorrect. We are creating a mismatch of impedance of hammer to soundboard. If the hammer and soundboard were a perfect match, all we would hear is a "thud", or a "snap" because all the energy would be immediately absorbed by the soundboard. The soundboard/string assembly exhibits a significantly higher impedance than the hammer. Also, it is the high impedance that enables the hammer to bounce back.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Let me add that, yes, the softer hammer dwells longer and tends to filter out partials, especially high partials and particularly where the period of the frequency coincides with the dwell time as it does in the lower capo section especially.  More mass does the same thing--increases dwell time.  Moreover, a hammer with too much mass delivering too much energy, that must be "voiced down" will tend to kill upper partials even more!  That being said, there are some pianos that will take more mass in the capo section as long as the hammer is firm enough.  Those tend to be high tension pianos.

So I agree with Jim, basically, that controlling mass in the upper part of the piano is important.  So is controlling the hammer profile (how much felt over the molding).  Large, soft hammers don't work well in the capo section of most pianos even when you harden them.  The reasons for that may have to do with the dynamics of hammer rebounding and what hardeners for that process.  But I digress.  Hardening those hammers addresses the softness but it doesn't address the mass.  If  you want more clarity in the treble section and if the hammer allows it, reduce mass and reduce the profile.  It is interesting to note that many "Steinway concert techs" do exactly that first thing when they come to a concert instrument.  That being said, at a certain point there are diminishing returns reducing the mass in the upper part of the piano.  We still need some percussive power there and a hammer which is too light can end up producing something that has clarity but is a bit thin sounding.  I think you can go too far, especially in the lower capo section.  

David,

I concur with your statements. I might add to your comment about partials and their formation. The way I visualize it, a soft hammer dwells on the string longer killing any partials that may be forming in the longitude mode leaving only the vertically formed fundamental in motion.

Also, there is a teensy-weensy error in our scientific usage of "impedance matching." We have the tendency to refer matching "hammer impedance to soundboard impedance" as a component of the voicing goal. Technically, that is incorrect. We are creating a mismatch of impedance of hammer to soundboard. If the hammer and soundboard were a perfect match, all we would hear is a "thud", or a "snap" because all the energy would be immediately absorbed by the soundboard. The soundboard/string assembly exhibits a significantly higher impedance than the hammer. Also, it is the high impedance that enables the hammer to bounce back.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Let me add that, yes, the softer hammer dwells longer and tends to filter out partials, especially high partials and particularly where the period of the frequency coincides with the dwell time as it does in the lower capo section especially.  More mass does the same thing--increases dwell time.  Moreover, a hammer with too much mass delivering too much energy, that must be "voiced down" will tend to kill upper partials even more!  That being said, there are some pianos that will take more mass in the capo section as long as the hammer is firm enough.  Those tend to be high tension pianos.

So I agree with Jim, basically, that controlling mass in the upper part of the piano is important.  So is controlling the hammer profile (how much felt over the molding).  Large, soft hammers don't work well in the capo section of most pianos even when you harden them.  The reasons for that may have to do with the dynamics of hammer rebounding and what hardeners for that process.  But I digress.  Hardening those hammers addresses the softness but it doesn't address the mass.  If  you want more clarity in the treble section and if the hammer allows it, reduce mass and reduce the profile.  It is interesting to note that many "Steinway concert techs" do exactly that first thing when they come to a concert instrument.  That being said, at a certain point there are diminishing returns reducing the mass in the upper part of the piano.  We still need some percussive power there and a hammer which is too light can end up producing something that has clarity but is a bit thin sounding.  I think you can go too far, especially in the lower capo section.  

David,

I concur with your statements. I might add to your comment about partials and their formation. The way I visualize it, a soft hammer dwells on the string longer killing any partials that may be forming in the longitude mode leaving only the vertically formed fundamental in motion.

Also, there is a teensy-weensy error in our scientific usage of "impedance matching." We have the tendency to refer matching "hammer impedance to soundboard impedance" as a component of the voicing goal. Technically, that is incorrect. We are creating a mismatch of impedance of hammer to soundboard. If the hammer and soundboard were a perfect match, all we would hear is a "thud", or a "snap" because all the energy would be immediately absorbed by the soundboard. The soundboard/string assembly exhibits a significantly higher impedance than the hammer. Also, it is the high impedance that enables the hammer to bounce back.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

All,

The belief about sustain relating to hammer resiliency and hardness has always been troubling to me. I've never related the hammer as a primary factor in sustain, except with regard to the amount of power the hammer delivers or dampens into the string. To me sustain is strictly a factor of the string-bridge-soundboard impedance. A softer hammer may appear to deliver less sustain but certainly a soft hammer will deliver less energy to the belly making it appear the piano has less sustain. If your mindset is placed within the concept that the hammer determines sustain, you may be led down the wrong path when troubleshooting.

Roger

Let me add that, yes, the softer hammer dwells longer and tends to filter out partials, especially high partials and particularly where the period of the frequency coincides with the dwell time as it does in the lower capo section especially.  More mass does the same thing--increases dwell time.  Moreover, a hammer with too much mass delivering too much energy, that must be "voiced down" will tend to kill upper partials even more!  That being said, there are some pianos that will take more mass in the capo section as long as the hammer is firm enough.  Those tend to be high tension pianos.

So I agree with Jim, basically, that controlling mass in the upper part of the piano is important.  So is controlling the hammer profile (how much felt over the molding).  Large, soft hammers don't work well in the capo section of most pianos even when you harden them.  The reasons for that may have to do with the dynamics of hammer rebounding and what hardeners for that process.  But I digress.  Hardening those hammers addresses the softness but it doesn't address the mass.  If  you want more clarity in the treble section and if the hammer allows it, reduce mass and reduce the profile.  It is interesting to note that many "Steinway concert techs" do exactly that first thing when they come to a concert instrument.  That being said, at a certain point there are diminishing returns reducing the mass in the upper part of the piano.  We still need some percussive power there and a hammer which is too light can end up producing something that has clarity but is a bit thin sounding.  I think you can go too far, especially in the lower capo section.  

David,

I concur with your statements. I might add to your comment about partials and their formation. The way I visualize it, a soft hammer dwells on the string longer killing any partials that may be forming in the longitude mode leaving only the vertically formed fundamental in motion.

Also, there is a teensy-weensy error in our scientific usage of "impedance matching." We have the tendency to refer matching "hammer impedance to soundboard impedance" as a component of the voicing goal. Technically, that is incorrect. We are creating a mismatch of impedance of hammer to soundboard. If the hammer and soundboard were a perfect match, all we would hear is a "thud", or a "snap" because all the energy would be immediately absorbed by the soundboard. The soundboard/string assembly exhibits a significantly higher impedance than the hammer. Also, it is the high impedance that enables the hammer to bounce back.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Roger

I basically agree with that, the potential for sustain is limited by the capacity of the soundboard. 

However, If a hammer,  because of its nature, filters out frequencies that but for the hammer filtering them out would otherwise be produced by the string and transferred to the soundboard, it stands to reason that our perception of sustain may be influenced by the hammer interacting with the string. 

Thus, whatever we can do to shorten hammer string contact time, whether it's reduced mass or a voicing techniques that produce a more resilient hammer that filters out fewer frequencies, may give the impression of better sustain. 

All,

The belief about sustain relating to hammer resiliency and hardness has always been troubling to me. I've never related the hammer as a primary factor in sustain, except with regard to the amount of power the hammer delivers or dampens into the string. To me sustain is strictly a factor of the string-bridge-soundboard impedance. A softer hammer may appear to deliver less sustain but certainly a soft hammer will deliver less energy to the belly making it appear the piano has less sustain. If your mindset is placed within the concept that the hammer determines sustain, you may be led down the wrong path when troubleshooting.

Roger

Let me add that, yes, the softer hammer dwells longer and tends to filter out partials, especially high partials and particularly where the period of the frequency coincides with the dwell time as it does in the lower capo section especially.  More mass does the same thing--increases dwell time.  Moreover, a hammer with too much mass delivering too much energy, that must be "voiced down" will tend to kill upper partials even more!  That being said, there are some pianos that will take more mass in the capo section as long as the hammer is firm enough.  Those tend to be high tension pianos.

So I agree with Jim, basically, that controlling mass in the upper part of the piano is important.  So is controlling the hammer profile (how much felt over the molding).  Large, soft hammers don't work well in the capo section of most pianos even when you harden them.  The reasons for that may have to do with the dynamics of hammer rebounding and what hardeners for that process.  But I digress.  Hardening those hammers addresses the softness but it doesn't address the mass.  If  you want more clarity in the treble section and if the hammer allows it, reduce mass and reduce the profile.  It is interesting to note that many "Steinway concert techs" do exactly that first thing when they come to a concert instrument.  That being said, at a certain point there are diminishing returns reducing the mass in the upper part of the piano.  We still need some percussive power there and a hammer which is too light can end up producing something that has clarity but is a bit thin sounding.  I think you can go too far, especially in the lower capo section.  

David,

I concur with your statements. I might add to your comment about partials and their formation. The way I visualize it, a soft hammer dwells on the string longer killing any partials that may be forming in the longitude mode leaving only the vertically formed fundamental in motion.

Also, there is a teensy-weensy error in our scientific usage of "impedance matching." We have the tendency to refer matching "hammer impedance to soundboard impedance" as a component of the voicing goal. Technically, that is incorrect. We are creating a mismatch of impedance of hammer to soundboard. If the hammer and soundboard were a perfect match, all we would hear is a "thud", or a "snap" because all the energy would be immediately absorbed by the soundboard. The soundboard/string assembly exhibits a significantly higher impedance than the hammer. Also, it is the high impedance that enables the hammer to bounce back.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

Roger

I basically agree with that, the potential for sustain is limited by the capacity of the soundboard. 

However, If a hammer,  because of its nature, filters out frequencies that but for the hammer filtering them out would otherwise be produced by the string and transferred to the soundboard, it stands to reason that our perception of sustain may be influenced by the hammer interacting with the string. 

Thus, whatever we can do to shorten hammer string contact time, whether it's reduced mass or a voicing techniques that produce a more resilient hammer that filters out fewer frequencies, may give the impression of better sustain. 

All,

The belief about sustain relating to hammer resiliency and hardness has always been troubling to me. I've never related the hammer as a primary factor in sustain, except with regard to the amount of power the hammer delivers or dampens into the string. To me sustain is strictly a factor of the string-bridge-soundboard impedance. A softer hammer may appear to deliver less sustain but certainly a soft hammer will deliver less energy to the belly making it appear the piano has less sustain. If your mindset is placed within the concept that the hammer determines sustain, you may be led down the wrong path when troubleshooting.

Roger

Let me add that, yes, the softer hammer dwells longer and tends to filter out partials, especially high partials and particularly where the period of the frequency coincides with the dwell time as it does in the lower capo section especially.  More mass does the same thing--increases dwell time.  Moreover, a hammer with too much mass delivering too much energy, that must be "voiced down" will tend to kill upper partials even more!  That being said, there are some pianos that will take more mass in the capo section as long as the hammer is firm enough.  Those tend to be high tension pianos.

So I agree with Jim, basically, that controlling mass in the upper part of the piano is important.  So is controlling the hammer profile (how much felt over the molding).  Large, soft hammers don't work well in the capo section of most pianos even when you harden them.  The reasons for that may have to do with the dynamics of hammer rebounding and what hardeners for that process.  But I digress.  Hardening those hammers addresses the softness but it doesn't address the mass.  If  you want more clarity in the treble section and if the hammer allows it, reduce mass and reduce the profile.  It is interesting to note that many "Steinway concert techs" do exactly that first thing when they come to a concert instrument.  That being said, at a certain point there are diminishing returns reducing the mass in the upper part of the piano.  We still need some percussive power there and a hammer which is too light can end up producing something that has clarity but is a bit thin sounding.  I think you can go too far, especially in the lower capo section.  

David,

I concur with your statements. I might add to your comment about partials and their formation. The way I visualize it, a soft hammer dwells on the string longer killing any partials that may be forming in the longitude mode leaving only the vertically formed fundamental in motion.

Also, there is a teensy-weensy error in our scientific usage of "impedance matching." We have the tendency to refer matching "hammer impedance to soundboard impedance" as a component of the voicing goal. Technically, that is incorrect. We are creating a mismatch of impedance of hammer to soundboard. If the hammer and soundboard were a perfect match, all we would hear is a "thud", or a "snap" because all the energy would be immediately absorbed by the soundboard. The soundboard/string assembly exhibits a significantly higher impedance than the hammer. Also, it is the high impedance that enables the hammer to bounce back.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

On the topics of piano hammers and voicing techniques, you'll find no shortage of individual and differing opinions among technicians.  However, the best source of information about Renner products comes from the company that has done the extensive research, design, and manufacturing of those products.  As the General Manager at Renner USA, I can offer that perspective. 

The Premium Blue, and Premium Blue Point hammers made by the Renner factories in Germany are among the finest made piano hammers in the world, which is why they are so popular and have been installed in so many of the pianos you encounter.  With proper voicing, they have been proven to work phenomenally well in any quality grand piano, regardless of the belly type.  We are currently teaching that voicing procedure to technicians from around the world this week at The Renner Academy.  However, that same step-by-step voicing procedure, written by Rick Baldassin, is also available for viewing and download at rennerusa.com in the Resources section under Training Manuals.

For factual information about our products, you may give me a call at Renner USA and I will be happy to help.

Roger

I basically agree with that, the potential for sustain is limited by the capacity of the soundboard. 

However, If a hammer,  because of its nature, filters out frequencies that but for the hammer filtering them out would otherwise be produced by the string and transferred to the soundboard, it stands to reason that our perception of sustain may be influenced by the hammer interacting with the string. 

Thus, whatever we can do to shorten hammer string contact time, whether it's reduced mass or a voicing techniques that produce a more resilient hammer that filters out fewer frequencies, may give the impression of better sustain. 

All,

The belief about sustain relating to hammer resiliency and hardness has always been troubling to me. I've never related the hammer as a primary factor in sustain, except with regard to the amount of power the hammer delivers or dampens into the string. To me sustain is strictly a factor of the string-bridge-soundboard impedance. A softer hammer may appear to deliver less sustain but certainly a soft hammer will deliver less energy to the belly making it appear the piano has less sustain. If your mindset is placed within the concept that the hammer determines sustain, you may be led down the wrong path when troubleshooting.

Roger

Let me add that, yes, the softer hammer dwells longer and tends to filter out partials, especially high partials and particularly where the period of the frequency coincides with the dwell time as it does in the lower capo section especially.  More mass does the same thing--increases dwell time.  Moreover, a hammer with too much mass delivering too much energy, that must be "voiced down" will tend to kill upper partials even more!  That being said, there are some pianos that will take more mass in the capo section as long as the hammer is firm enough.  Those tend to be high tension pianos.

So I agree with Jim, basically, that controlling mass in the upper part of the piano is important.  So is controlling the hammer profile (how much felt over the molding).  Large, soft hammers don't work well in the capo section of most pianos even when you harden them.  The reasons for that may have to do with the dynamics of hammer rebounding and what hardeners for that process.  But I digress.  Hardening those hammers addresses the softness but it doesn't address the mass.  If  you want more clarity in the treble section and if the hammer allows it, reduce mass and reduce the profile.  It is interesting to note that many "Steinway concert techs" do exactly that first thing when they come to a concert instrument.  That being said, at a certain point there are diminishing returns reducing the mass in the upper part of the piano.  We still need some percussive power there and a hammer which is too light can end up producing something that has clarity but is a bit thin sounding.  I think you can go too far, especially in the lower capo section.  

David,

I concur with your statements. I might add to your comment about partials and their formation. The way I visualize it, a soft hammer dwells on the string longer killing any partials that may be forming in the longitude mode leaving only the vertically formed fundamental in motion.

Also, there is a teensy-weensy error in our scientific usage of "impedance matching." We have the tendency to refer matching "hammer impedance to soundboard impedance" as a component of the voicing goal. Technically, that is incorrect. We are creating a mismatch of impedance of hammer to soundboard. If the hammer and soundboard were a perfect match, all we would hear is a "thud", or a "snap" because all the energy would be immediately absorbed by the soundboard. The soundboard/string assembly exhibits a significantly higher impedance than the hammer. Also, it is the high impedance that enables the hammer to bounce back.

Nick,

If history serves us out, I'm sure we'll receive a plethora of beliefs and ideas about this subject. I'll put in my 2 cents worth. I'm pretty much on board with Thomas Wright. Voicing up generally attains my conceived "perfect" piano tone. As you mention the belly plays a fundamental role in that "perfect" piano –primarily within the attack and decay component.

My philosophy starts with a 2-ended approach, the bottom end for power and top end for color. I am not a fan of juicing the entire hammer, head to toe. I apply acetone and keytop to the regions below 3 and 9 o'clock to set the power level. This region also plays a limited role in overall tone. Sometimes no top voicing is necessary -- particularly in the mid to lower regions of the scale.

To produce the attack and color of the upper ranges of the tone I apply heavy (like molasses consistency) lacquer to the 11 to 1 o'clock regions. This thick lacquer prevents the lacquer from migrating too far into the "virgin" regions; regions I want to remain untouched with any chemicals. This virgin region provides the resiliency to produce the "perfect" tone and attack of the upper partials. Thick lacquer also provides me the option to later increase the lacquer penetration with thinner.

If we think about how we approach the voicing down of high density hammers, we are generally doing the same thing – needling the aforementioned virgin regions leaving the upper and lower regions stiff for power and color.

Roger

Ray Negron makes a special hammer not at this time advertised. It is for a softer beginning tone to allow a true voice-up hammer. If you want this kind of hammer, request the weichert felt or whatever you want, and request the technique that makes the hammer a bit softer or less dense. He knows what to do.

I had to pursue this with him after finding that the standard hammer with weichert felt was starting to get too hard to start with, had to needle and still could not get a normal tone for a customer... The voicing instructions made it clear to me that a voice-down influence had prevailed in the construction of the Ronsen hammer. This had become a Ronsen take on the traditional German high-tension hammer. Unfortunately, in becoming this, american technicians (and pianists) stood to lose one reliable place to obtain a quality voice-up hammer.

With Ray's softer weichert hammer, I apply lacquer hardener down low near the staple to preserve felt from swelling over time, thereby widening hammer dimensions. It's important to solidify this area of any hammer since felt swells and deforms with moisture, I believe including gradual humidity ingress over time. I have seen hammer clearance and swelling issues on some brands of piano - fairly new too.

Then, I use very light washes of lacquer or acetone and keytop solution as needed. Normally very little or none for home studios or churches, most clients. I'm calling the hammers "softer"
but they are actually very close to what clients want without any hardener, all save the upper treble where more attack is needed. Typical might be a very light wash of lacquer in the upper treble only. Or, for an even less-invasive approach, extremely small drops (the smaller the needle applicator, the better) of either lacquer wash or keytop and acet. applied on the strike point. I prefer the keytop (actually the Pianotek product) solution here except that it clogs small pipettes. The great thing about this is that it penetrates so lightly (when a tiny amount is applied) that wear of the hammers will reach the untreated felt below that tiny bit of hardener - in time. I learned this tiny drop-application at the Steinway selection room prep area, by the skilled more elderly technician there. But coming from him, it also highlighted the importance of the technique in the concert techs "toolbox."

This helps keep the tone pleasing and workable over the long haul.

This journey with hammers has been born of trying to help customers with terribly bright or simply worn out hammers, on some cases with hammers that were just too dense and hard after several years. Whatever denser hammer had been put on the piano previously by a manufacturer or rebuilder - was not able to produce a pleasing tone any longer.

The only other hammer that I am aware of that can work satisfactorily long-term is the Steinway hammer, particularly when not overly lacquered or even "protocol" dipped at the factory.

A significant amount of my influence on this topic comes from some of the great individuals at Steinway NY. They told me years ago that they were convinced that a certain high-tension hammer just got too bright after a short period of normal use, and that this made it less desirable for most cases besides a concert piano getting less use / frequent new hammers.

That opinion has absolutely held true with me over time with observations in the field, and with customers' feelings about their pianos.

My respectful assessment of the piano / hammer industry is that there is a pressing need to preserve quality voice-up hammer manufacturing and availability for the market. There is a corresponding need to keep dealerships and clients educated on how voice-up hammers can last longer under use, and keep a good tone with normal maintenance.

I must add here that Renner insists that voice-up methods with hardener are an unsophisticated relic of 100 years ago, misinformed and ineffective.

I beg to differ. It's one thing this to make this pronouncement as a manufacturer and another to work in a world of pianists in your part of the world. I wish Renner would not be quite so quick to dismiss this tradition which has served a century of the world's finest pianists that ever lived. I'm concerned that we're on the verge of losing a profoundly functional type of hammer construction. The up-and-coming generations of pianists need to know that there is more in the tonal pallet of the traditional piano than much of the percussive brilliance of the pianos they practice on daily. In other words, we need more pianos that don't shriek when we press a key for mezzo-piano volume!

I'm convinced that the best knowledge comes from good feedback and communication with pianists. While the technician might themself be a pianist, the overall experience of fine pianists must prevail in terms of an understanding of piano tone. The technician's greatest asset will always be humility and surely this admission must conclude all shared here.

On the topics of piano hammers and voicing techniques, you'll find no shortage of individual and differing opinions among technicians.  However, the best source of information about Renner products comes from the company that has done the extensive research, design, and manufacturing of those products.  As the General Manager at Renner USA, I can offer that perspective. 

The Premium Blue, and Premium Blue Point hammers made by the Renner factories in Germany are among the finest made piano hammers in the world, which is why they are so popular and have been installed in so many of the pianos you encounter.  With proper voicing, they have been proven to work phenomenally well in any quality grand piano, regardless of the belly type.  We are currently teaching that voicing procedure to technicians from around the world this week at The Renner Academy.  However, that same step-by-step voicing procedure, written by Rick Baldassin, is also available for viewing and download at rennerusa.com in the Resources section under Training Manuals.

For factual information about our products, you may give me a call at Renner USA and I will be happy to help.

Roger

I basically agree with that, the potential for sustain is limited by the capacity of the soundboard. 

However, If a hammer,  because of its nature, filters out frequencies that but for the hammer filtering them out would otherwise be produced by the string and transferred to the soundboard, it stands to reason that our perception of sustain may be influenced by the hammer interacting with the string. 

Thus, whatever we can do to shorten hammer string contact time, whether it's reduced mass or a voicing techniques that produce a more resilient hammer that filters out fewer frequencies, may give the impression of better sustain. 

All,

The belief about sustain relating to hammer resiliency and hardness has always been troubling to me. I've never related the hammer as a primary factor in sustain, except with regard to the amount of power the hammer delivers or dampens into the string. To me sustain is strictly a factor of the string-bridge-soundboard impedance. A softer hammer may appear to deliver less sustain but certainly a soft hammer will deliver less energy to the belly making it appear the piano has less sustain. If your mindset is placed within the concept that the hammer determines sustain, you may be led down the wrong path when troubleshooting.

Roger

Let me add that, yes, the softer hammer dwells longer and tends to filter out partials, especially high partials and particularly where the period of the frequency coincides with the dwell time as it does in the lower capo section especially.  More mass does the same thing--increases dwell time.  Moreover, a hammer with too much mass delivering too much energy, that must be "voiced down" will tend to kill upper partials even more!  That being said, there are some pianos that will take more mass in the capo section as long as the hammer is firm enough.  Those tend to be high tension pianos.

So I agree with Jim, basically, that controlling mass in the upper part of the piano is important.  So is controlling the hammer profile (how much felt over the molding).  Large, soft hammers don't work well in the capo section of most pianos even when you harden them.  The reasons for that may have to do with the dynamics of hammer rebounding and what hardeners for that process.  But I digress.  Hardening those hammers addresses the softness but it doesn't address the mass.  If  you want more clarity in the treble section and if the hammer allows it, reduce mass and reduce the profile.  It is interesting to note that many "Steinway concert techs" do exactly that first thing when they come to a concert instrument.  That being said, at a certain point there are diminishing returns reducing the mass in the upper part of the piano.  We still need some percussive power there and a hammer which is too light can end up producing something that has clarity but is a bit thin sounding.  I think you can go too far, especially in the lower capo section.  

David,

I concur with your statements. I might add to your comment about partials and their formation. The way I visualize it, a soft hammer dwells on the string longer killing any partials that may be forming in the longitude mode leaving only the vertically formed fundamental in motion.

Also, there is a teensy-weensy error in our scientific usage of "impedance matching." We have the tendency to refer matching "hammer impedance to soundboard impedance" as a component of the voicing goal. Technically, that is incorrect. We are creating a mismatch of impedance of hammer to soundboard. If the hammer and soundboard were a perfect match, all we would hear is a "thud", or a "snap" because all the energy would be immediately absorbed by the soundboard. The soundboard/string assembly exhibits a significantly higher impedance than the hammer. Also, it is the high impedance that enables the hammer to bounce back.