I am interested in learning to tune pianos and have a couple of clunkers to practice on but I have some questions. I know pianos can have #2, #3, etc size tuning pins, I would think a tuning hammer would have to have interchangeable heads for the different sizes. Can anyone recommend a good starting set for tuning, including wedges, tuning fork or other devices they prefer, and hammer(s)? My grandfather was a tuner/technician of the highest order, even working on nickelodeans, pipe organs, player pianos, hurdy-gurdies, and so on, but he died 47 years ago and my uncle won't give up any of his equipment. I do not plan to do restoration work or work for others, but I want to learn tuning, regulation, and voicing so I can keep my own pianos up to snuff eventually. I am retired and consider this a good way to spend my time when I am not playing the piano.

Try taking a look at Schaffpiano.com.
Roll down to technicians tools and hit the button.
Begin drooling....
I would suggest the Rosewood Extension Hammer, and you'll want a few different heads and tips (...if you're tuning several brands and styles of piano). I prefer a short-head 15-degree , and my collection of tips has 5 or 6 #2 tips and 3 #3 tips. Even from the same manufacturer, they fit the pins differently! You'll want a snug fit that puts the tip close to, but not in contact with, the becket (where the wire fits into the tuning pin). If the tip touches the wire, you can break strings when you start moving the pins. Sloppy pin fitting is the start of sloppy or uncontrollable tuning. Get a nice fit!

You'll probably get a lot of advice on mutes and temperament strips. Basically for uprights; 4 wire-handled mutes and a couple of 1/4" long rubber wedges serve for me. For grands; the wider wedge mutes work for me, and I have a set of felt (hammerfelt) wedges for concert work, too. For muting strips, you'll need a couple of different thicknesses. The temp-strip should not unduly force the strings apart/together. Always step on the pdeal and get those dampers away from the strings when inserting the strip, ok? I also use strips of action-cloth (various thicknesses) cut into narrow strips for uprights. And I have a set of leather backed felt strips that I got at a piano technicians convention a few years ago. Love those things...but they aren't for sale anywhere.

Visit the PTG website (Piano Technicians Guild) and take a look at the resources available. Suggest a Reblitz book for a starter, and you'll get a ton of advice beyond that, too.

I leave you to the tender mercies of the world's technicians at this point. Good Luck!

Smiling,
I am,

Good advice from a good man! (Happy New Year Mr. Hickey!)

My only thing to add is that I am in love with my Levitan tuning lever. It is a very well thought out tool: Very light weight, very stiff, moderately priced, and with a rosewood handle looks pretty slick as well. It comes with a Watanabe (Japanese) #2 tip, which will get you by in the vast majority of situations.

However having a #1 and #3 is an advantage: the further down the pin the tip fits without wobbling = less "flag-poling" and better control. You'll need a tip wrench to change tips, OR, try what I use: a large flat blade screwdriver bit that fits in a tuning hammer (designed to tighten plate screws) and a medium small crescent wrench.

It sells from Pianotek for around $150. It's 90% of what a Fujan is without the odd bulky look and $400+ price tag. Don't get me wrong, many people LOVE the Fujan and think it is the ultimate tuning wrench.

Thanks so much to both of you. I will check these out.

I decided for a rubberized handle instead of rosewood many years ago when money was tight. I really do not think it makes much difference. I opted for smooth, which I find easier on the hand.

I had a friend who swore by foam bicycle handle tape for his tuning lever.

I glued a ball to the end of my Schaff extension hammer. I have several extensions with different tips already on. To change a tip, I change the extension. It's a bit heavier in the tool bag, but much quicker changing tips.

I went though the X-Mas rush using the Schaff, and never picked up my two Fujans. I think it gives the hand and arm a break to change the hammers once in a while.

Spend the money on a good hammer - it's worth it.

Now, Bob is having a REAL ball tuning!!!!!! hahaha

That joke makes me want to bawl!

Jeff, speaking of tips, who makes the best quality? Since they vary from brand to brand, is there a way to know what brand might fit a specific model of piano best? I called Kawai for my 30-yr-old grand, but they didn't really know.

With all sorts of piano tools, you more or less get what you pay for. There are $40 tuning hammers and $400 tuning hammers. There are huge differences in the quality of tips as well. The fit, the consistency and accuracy of the machining, the material quality etc. The best quality tips, in my opinion, come from Germany and Japan.

Brand names and possible source in the USA?

One good starting place is here:
Faulk Tuning Hammers

I second Jurgen's recommendation, and also will add that you consider Fujan as well. I own one of each and use them both about equally. The Fujan carbon fiber outperforms the Faulk carbon fiber in the area of rigidity and pin feedback. I personally witnessed the deflect-o-meter test between the two. The Fujan was considerably more rigid, but both were light years beyond any steel or titanium-shafted tuning hammers. (I know light years is not a unit of deflection, sorry, but I can't remember the actual numbers). But the Faulk is less bulky, more elegant, and perhaps more balanced when tuning grands. It's like comparing an Nissan GT-R to an Aston Martin. Both are amazing for different reasons, and I would be very unhappy if I had to give up either one.

http://www.fujanproducts.com/
http://www.faulkpiano.com/CFTuningHammer/

There is a copycat tuning hammer that has a shaft similar to the Fujan, but before you are duped into buying one, take a good look at the head, and how it necks down to a very small diameter. What good is that carbon fiber going to do if you put such a weak, flexible metal link in between the shaft and the tuning pin? The Fujan head is machined out of a solid block of aluminum - it doesn't give.

For those who are just starting to learn how to tune, I firmly believe the following (although some will disagree - and we all have a right to our opinion): The heavier and more flexible your tuning hammer, the longer it's going to take you to become proficient. A lighter, more rigid (carbon fiber shafted) tuning hammer is going to ease the learning curve, and help you to develop good technique more quickly, because you'll be able to sense more clearly what is happening with the pin and string. And if that results in you doing paid tunings a few months sooner, then it will more than pay for itself.

Heavier weight, and resulting increase in momentum and inertia, works against your efforts to provide small, precise and controlled movements. The extra mass also absorbs vibrations and reduces your ability to "feel" what is happening with the pin in the block, and also how the string is or is not moving with respect to the bearing points and felt surfaces it contacts. Additionally, a metal shaft flexes far more than a carbon fiber shaft. The tuning pin always twists, causing the tool handle to rotate quite a bit before the base of the pin moves with respect to the block. If your tool shaft is also flexing, your handle will deflect even further, diminishing your ability to feel what the pin is doing.

Mark, with regards to the test you witnessed, do you know whether it was the first Faulk carbon fibre hammer that was tested, or one of the second generation CF-A or CF-T hammers which combine carbon fibre with aluminium or titanium? I'm thinking of buying one (a CF-A) myself, and I'd be interested to hear the results of this kind of comparison with the Fujan.

Nice post Mr. Purney! +1

Extremely nice website too! Knowing you, I suppose you did the design work yourself. Awesome work.

I always have wondered about this deflection test. Is the deflection of a conventional hammer significant when considering the deflection of the pin? I have my doubts. But then I prefer a heavy hammer for nudging very tight pins, even though I prefer to use a smooth pull when possible.

Like, lets say I am testing the wind drag on two different side view mirrors for a car. At 100 mph one has 30% less drag. Great! But would it matter on a '57 Chevy?

I'm a rebuilder, and my life is in the shop mostly. However, I love tuning and love putting really nice tunings on pianos, especially my remanufactures...ie...I'm not out there tuning all day.

My experience of the Fujan is very different from Mark's experience.

In learning to use the hammer, I was seriously delayed and thwarted by the stiff light hammer. It was not until I decided to jump ship and shift to Joe Goss's medium weight mid-flexibility lever that my technique took a quantum leap...almost overnight.

Why?

In my experience, the different levers, with their respective flexibilities, and weights lend themselves to different styles of tuning, ie light stiff tends towards the slow or controlled pull, and mid-weight to heavier setups tend towards the impact method.

With an upper body musculature that has been challenged...low tone...since childhood, I possess an upper frame that has taken huge amounts of core strength work to become even marginally developed. The physical ability to use the slow pull, despite the fact that I like the slow pull concept(and like the feedback it gives), is simply beyond my strength capabilities. The body, not the lever in this case, is the problem. However, one must find the lever that fits their personal bod'.

Mark, if I'm correct, from your pictures in the journal, you appear to have a well developed and somewhat muscular, stocky frame. I submit that your body makeup is an inseparable part of your levers, and the reason they are so succesful for you.

The Goss hammer (after watching Bill Bremmer use this lever and after watching, with envy, his ease of body use in KS)allows me to use the weight of the hammer to do the work my upper body musculature can't.

Which is better...neither...it just depends on how you want or need to use the body you've been given.

After buying and using the Goss, bummed that I've got over $500 tied up in the Fujan, I've tried to make it work but have relegated it to the for sale department. PM me or email privately if interested.

Jim Ialeggio

I also find that hard to believe. Perhaps the small mass of the carbon fiber hammers gives on the illusion of more rigidity.

Kees

DoelKees, it's not an illusion. A carbon fiber tube doesn't flex and spring the way a metal tube does (any metal, take your pick). This is a fact, and if you find it hard to believe, then ld experiment and see for yourself. When a tool flexes, some of the energy you apply is lost to the tool. If the tool doesn't flex, your energy is translated to the business end (the tuning tip) and not wasted. Some people prefer the flex, and to each his own. Some people prefer the ride of an old Buick, but I'd rather have a tight suspension designed for performance handling.

Of course, if you apply enough force to the carbon fiber it will shatter, where metal will just keep deforming - but good luck trying to shatter a carbon tube in a tuning environment.

UprightTooner, the deflection is significant, even if most of the rotation is from the twist of the pin. This is because a tool that flexes is like a shock absorber that interferes with your ability to feel the vibrations and motions of the tuning pin. Also, if you're flexing the shaft, the shaft becomes a spring, storing energy. Once enough force is applied to break the base of the pin free from the block, there will be a sudden release of extra stored energy to further rotate the pin in the direction you are already turning it. This release of energy is something you cannot control, but can only compensate for or anticipate. And if small, precise movements are the goal, then an extra boost is not your friend, and having to anticipate or compensate for it is going to lower your precision.

In using my Fujan, experimenting with the Faulk, and then moving to the Goss, I noticed a significant difference between both metal levers and the carbon lever.

The sense of the minute metallic "click" or subtle indication of pin movement was much clearer to my hand in the metal to metal levers. This doesn't really make sense to me, as, as Mark says, the stiffness of the carbon fiber is greater, relative to the(any) metal. However my experience remains that the feeling of pin movement in the metal-to-metal levers, at least to my hand, is of a different character than that of the carbon fiber.

I wonder if metal to metal interfaces allow transmission of vibration (ie the minute vibration caused by a movement of the pin foot)in a way that is different from carbon fiber.

Any materials engineers out there have any info on this?

Jim Ialeggio

Thanks for the reply.

Well here is what I notice on tight pins. I can spring the pin and change the pitch up and down a great deal without moving the foot of the pin. And of course when the foot does let loose (on a smooth pull) the smallest amount the pitch the string can be changed is a large amount (again using a smooth pull.) Sure, some of this may be in the flex of the hammer. And I suppose there may be the rare circumstance where a couple of strings on a particular piano may be tuned with a smooth pull with a stiffer hammer, and not with a conventional hammer. But the flex in the pin is were the problem lies, not in the flex of the hammer.

This is obvious when considering how much the pitch can be changed without moving the foot of the pin. The spring of the lever does not come into play. What I ALSO notice is that I cannot flex the hammer ANY amount and not have the head of the pin move. The pin is ALWAYS more flexible than the hammer.

Now as far as being able to feel the pin better or to have better control with a stiffer hammer, I am not so sure. The best analogy I can give is when trout fishing. A slight nibble can be felt better with a more flexible fishing pole. Not to mention more control in working the hook into the trout's mouth. (Ah, April 14th is how many days away?)

And fwiw in the general discussion, a tube of steel would probably be stiffer than a tube of carbon fiber. It is the width of the "beam" the makes the biggest difference in the modulus, not the stiffness of the material. And I think steel is stiffer than carbon fiber. The tube design may be necessary because carbon fiber is less stiff and the design advantage (if any) really lies in weight.

From what I remember from studying "beam" theory long ago it is the width to the 4th power (width x width x width x width) that is important: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_theory

Upright, The trick is getting the foot of the pin to move with a bump without the pitch of the string changing. I use three different hammers, one is a Yamaha and the other two are extension hammers. A old Hale and a new Schaff.

I have a friend who says he buys the "expensive hammers", but always returns to his old goose neck.

I have run across pianos where you can bump the pin and not have the pitch change. There was an incredible amount of rendering friction on these. Now this could be just personal preference, but in such a situation the last technique I would select is a bumping/jerking style. There would be no way of knowing where in the neutral or marshmallow zone the pin was in. A smooth pull would be my first choice with high rendering friction. And a bumping/jerking style for very tight pins with lower rendering friction.