Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Hamer Height, Strike Point, and Weight...oh my!

I basically need to know the general shape and weight that I am aiming for, before I even start. Generally, I start with an overly-wide strike point surface area--especially in the middle/bass sections and a taller hammer height. I like to sample the entire set of hammers glued onto the shanks.

I can't just choose a random hammer weight without having prepared the action/touch to accommodate that particular approach (e.g., higher action ratios, hammers hung further out on the shanks, different repetition springs configurations (i.e., tighter/looser pinnings)) ahead of time.

Once I have the shape (i.e., strike point surface area), and the basic weight set where I think I want them, I go off and do other things to give the hammers a chance to compress and settle down. When I start work on the hammers again, I will refine the heigh and graduate the weights and strike points as consistently as humanly possible.

The extra hammer height is, basically, my "oh [censored] factor." And, if I somehow extremely [censored] the hammer too much, I just put new felt on and start over. It is no big deal: I get [censored] in piano technology all the time.

I missed your response as a new thread....sorry about that..still interested in what you are doing here.


Before you start what? Do you mean, in setting up the action geometry prior to hammer work, you come up with a provisional guesstimate of what you think this belly will want you to give it in terms of leverage/hammer shape.weight, then set up the action geometry to hit this abstract ballpark bandwidth?

It sounds like, since you are targeting lower hammer weights in general, as I am, you will expect your leverages, hammer weights, to be in a bandwidth that accommodate these parameters and start there. In saying this, I'm guessing that your hammer work is tailoring to high end already completed pianos not rebuilds,so you are not retaining the leverages the piano manufacturer installed. Correct?



Then you perform most of the shaping/weight reduction with the hammers still installed on the shanks? In adjusting the shape, are you mainly talking about the width of the strike point, concentrating up top, or as you reduce the strike point are you also taking the shoulders off too. Or, is shoulder felt removal more about weight maintenance rather than strike point support.



They don't compress on their own, I don't think. How do you get them to compress. Also along the compressing vein, when you remove height, the removal of felt gives a puffy attack at first until the strike point is solidified a bit. Do you listen through the puffy attack, or deal with the fresh strike felt in some way to know when you have arrived at your tonal destination.


got it.

I'm asking specific questions to try and ferret out your process. In many cases these processes are so "in one's own head" and non-verbal, that the translation to verbal communication can be quite incomplete and confusing.

Jim Ialeggio

Theoretically... It seems to me that those working in an academic environment as either a student or perhaps even as staff where one can play around on university owned instruments in the name of "research" or "doing things no one else has the gumption to try" where little risk or sometimes accountability for failed attempts is presumed- most of the process, if there is one, remains in one's head. With out a procedure of repeatability, should there be success, such endeavors, in my experience, remain futile.

Universities are indeed the ideal place to do piano research, document findings, and test the longevity of various approaches in piano technology (i.e., how different approaches hold up to intense pianistic abuse). Without this kind of +decade experience and dedication to the scientific method (i.e., intense documentation of anything and everything observable) at multiple institutions, I would not be who I am today. For me, it has always been the pursuit is of higher knowledge and understanding, not commercialism and corporate devotion. This kind of commitment to piano technology requires significant support from department/school/college heads in order to sustain the research of such long-term projects (e.g., the extra staff technicians and 15+ research assistants).

jim ialeggio, et al., I am more than happy to share everything that I have discovered up until this point in time. Just remember, though, that it is a constant evolutionary process of experiences through thoughtful/deliberate observations. What I do and think today, could become nearly irrelevant tomorrow. I'm OK with that--I've been forced to rethink my standpoint on piano technology thousands of times in the past, when confronted with new and contradictory evidence.

[to be continued...]

I don't disagree that an institution of learning is an ideal place. That is its purpose after all. But, as Jim pointed out, articulating methodology as well as, in my view, defining a control to compare against the test subject is everything. In my experience, few are the places that have enough duplicate instruments, beyond beater practice pianos, to attempt such a thing. One is lucky if there is more than a single concert instrument of any decent quality. If there is intense documentation then defining the process is quite simple as the work has already been done. While I don't work in the world of commercialism and corporatism when it comes to piano technology, there are the everyday working technicians that must. Not all have a playground where much of their time can be spent theorizing and experimenting on instruments purchased and owned by someone else or a large institution. Some are lucky enough not to have to cram a day full of tuning and service work to survive. Few are those however.

I'm very curious what institutions of higher learning have extra staff technicians and 15+ research assistants all devoted to piano technology? Better yet, who would fund such an endeavor? I've looked at pretty much all of the big music schools, their programs/degrees both grad/undergrad offered and, honestly, I can't even find one that has such a program. I also can't see what is left to discover in the construction of a modern instrument that would require such a research team... beyond the application of different or high technology materials, of course. I also don't see what the benefit of such research is to the musical world if it doesn't come back to the populous in the form of commercialism (in some facet). As I see it, if the findings don't come back to the general market place, only very high priced "boutique" piano builders and purchasers of such custom instruments could benefit from such a thing. Personally, I don't believe in making the arts, particularly music, part of an aristocracy. I feel there is way too much stratification of the arts to be only for the "well off" in this country as it is.

jim ialeggio, my first step is to identify the parameters of the situation (e.g., the space and pianist(s) involved). As trite as it sounds: I begin the process with careful observation of how the pianist physically/musically interacts with the piano [from within the intended performance/usage space]. I watch their technique and what they are trying to do with the piano. It is imperative that I ascertain what the limiting factors involved are.

I've known for a long time now that the very best sound and action response comes from extremely light hammers. But there is a trade-off: the touch of the action changes. Some pianists don't like that. Some of us prefer to drive luxury sedans, other prefer to feel the raw power of performance, and then there is everything in between (aka a balance of extremes).

I don't "do" a specific approach. If I am working with heavy handed/armed pianists in dry/quiet performance spaces (e.g., huge/wide stages), I know ahead of time, they will feel uncomfortable with a keyboard using lighter hammers. Light hammers may well sound better and project further into the hall--which I know they do--but pianists are more used to feeling the response/fight at the keyboard (i.e., the pianists don't necessarily hear what they are playing, at all times, when they are performing with an orchestra--but they do know what they are feeling at the keyboard). If this feeling is dramatically different, especially when the situation is such that they can not hear all of their detail in sound, they are not going to be at ease at the piano.

There are many approaches to compensating for hammer weight reduction, but they all produce different effects and responses at the keyboard. What I do is try to dial-in these different parameters to match the performance requirements of the space [and the pianists involved]. <---I am guessing this paragraph is of most interest. I've tried a lot of things, so it is going to take some time to work through it all...

The short version: light hammers are ever so awesome, but there is a balance that that needs to be sought--pianists want/need to work against a limiting force, when creating musical art.

I thought Florida State was the only school to offer a Masters in Piano Technology.

So does McGill.

OK. So as a starting point...I do want to get to the tone...but as a starting point, you want to lighten the hammers, though lighten is a relative word. As you say, the touch must also be addressed when you reduce the mass at the end of the shank.

Maintaining resistance at the key, given lighter hammers, throughout the stroke, is not all that hard. As Ed Mcmorrow has been saying for years, elevate the static downweight to 65-70g @#1 to 55-ish@88 (depending on the action's leverage and the pianist it is for), by removing lead from the key front. Increase action leverage both for projection and resistance reasons, judiciously increase friction. It makes an easy to play action with plenty of resistance throughout the stroke. The faster you play, the easier these actions get. All the while, they maintain resistance without increased inertia, which is the way resistance is usually achieved.

Specifically, what do you do, in your protocol, do to maintain this essential and required resistance, given lighter hammers. Lets keep in mind that the tonal part of the menu needs to be brought into this discussion as it progresses as it is the part that has not been discussed well up to this point.

Jim Ialeggio

Ryan I believe you are correct. Perhaps its unfair but I didn't place FSU in my top list of music schools for piano.

Hi Prout,

I checked McGill's website and the only thing I saw was that the Schulich School of Music offers something called "Music Technology" but I couldn't find any information about a graduate program in piano technology.

Am I looking in the right place?

The only other program that comes close to a masters program is Oberlin's new Artist Diploma in Piano Technology.

Hi, Ryan and all --

The McGill program looks like an engineering/science based program on music in general, not piano design or service. The Royal Conservatory p.t. group in Toronto may offer p.t. training but seems pretty focused on maintaining the conservatory's pianos. Western Ontario gives a certificate after an academic year's study and requires entering candidates to have piano-performance skills and demonstrated hand skills. Florida State and Oberlin are true graduate programs (master's level), requiring competence in piano technology of all applicants. None of these seems to be devoted to pure research; they all are, each at its own level, intending to prepare candidates to administer and maintain pianos, often whole stables of them. (Thanks for the opportunity to look at academic websites, one of my favorite occupations!)

I know that there are pure research groups for other instruments -- my dad was very involved in the Catgut Acoustical Society and spent a lot of time experimenting with different shapes for violin bodies -- but I don't know of any such group for pianos. Maybe someone on this board knows more.

I was wrong. It is an M.A. in Music Technology. Many schools have that degree. I think you are right about FSU being the only one, in N.A. at least, that offers an M.A. in Piano Technology

I took a class at a PTG National with Ann Garee, the person leading the FSU program, and a graduate-student assistant. Boy, were they both knowledgeable and great teachers. That was one of my best PTG classes, showing me clearly how much more there was for me to learn in "my" field.

[meanwhile]...back at the topic:

Yes, in general, I do lighten the hammers--primarily for reasons of performance. If a piano is not repeating in any given section of the piano, in a way that pianists require--when the action is setup and regulated properly--then the hammers are too heavily scaled in that section of the piano to work properly. <---So, IMHO, this must be corrected, regardless of other considerations. Hammer weight is one control when dialling-in the limiting response at the keyboard; the observation is repetition response.

In terms of tone, and heavy hammers, one also needs to be aware of the dynamic bandwidth (i.e., the playable dynamic range that is useable by the pianist). The heavier the hammers are, the wider this middle range bandwidth is, at the cost of the softer dynamics. This may seem like only a negative parameter, but it's not: the lighter the hammers, the more control necessary to keep a given dynamic constant in performance. With very heavy hammers, almost any pianist can sound competent--everything seems to fall within a middle dynamic range. With lighter hammers, the pianist needs to have greater control, or unprepared notes will pop-out of context.

Maintaining control over the key throughout the keystroke--using comparatively light hammers--is, as you state, not all that hard. BUT, it is different. All of the extremes and combinations I've so far tried produce great results, but they are all slightly different from what a keyboard feels like with heavy hammers. I mention this, because there is "something" to that feel that pianists appreciate--it should never be completely dismissed. I always keep that thought in the back of my head.

Agreed: static down weight is another means of control. I've gone as far as 90g around the top of the piano. With up/down-weights, I'm generally observing repetition. It needs to be high enough to repeat as fast as humanly possible. Once this upper limit is found (i.e., further out-of-balance does not produce any faster repetition) then this parameter can be slightly adjusted up/down for other considerations...if it is necessary.

Inertia is something I will bring back into the system, as a limiting factor against pounding/banging pianists, once the system is working as it should. I think this is one of the characteristics that pianists appreciate with heavier hammers (i.e., it give a light hammer piano some of that heavy hammer feel). However, this is a very dangerous road to travel; ergonomically, it is not healthy, IMHO.

What are the other dials I adjust? There are many. As you've stated, increased friction is helpful for lighter hammers. This can be done at the balance rail, if the keys are well-enough balance at the back; the pinning is also very important, especially in the whippen. Higher hammer pinning is great for tone and consistency during repetition. Higher action ratios are very useful with lighter hammers, so too is the hanging of the hammers further out on the shank in terms of what the keyboard feels like. I've tried mass in the whippens, which was a complete fail, but mass in the keys, for reasons of inertia, is useful--this also helps to saturate the key system. Saturation is essentially what I am trying to observe and then modify to within the usable range. There are MANY strategies to saturate the system.

There is more...so much more...

OK got that. We are on a similar page with this, and also you seem to agree that the bandwidth of functionality is quite large, given an understanding of the parameters involved.

So, lets move on to adjusting tone in relation to the action parameters just discussed, with specifics, so we are not flailing about in abstractions. Can you break down a specific protocol of how you would approach determining the target weight and strike profile you choose?

Jim Ialeggio

Your credentials are relevant to the topic, so I was just curious about where your Masters degree in piano technology is from?

Since curiosity killed the cat, and credentials don't really mean crap, let's get back to the topic: piano technology...[doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, doo-ah, dooooo-aaaaah].

OK, so, let's assume the hall/pianist parameters/limitations are established, and are now firmly in mind; I know where I am going and where my limits are, for that given situation--in terms of keyboard responsiveness.

Tonally, when we take the hammers into lighter territory, the saturation levels--in all parts of the tone--begin to reduce substantially. This part of the tone should be carefully re-observed by the tuner/technician, as it is unfamiliar tonal territory to most (i.e., the tone is generally more stable, among other things); tuner/voicers are generally used to hearing near full-saturation, nearly all the time, and have learned to ignore it--this is a byproduct of heavy hammers: it gives the illusion of destructive power and might, without actually having the amplitude to back it up.

The lighter the hammers, the softer the hammer felt needs to be. Without this adjustment, the hammer tone will be too cold and lack colour range (i.e., using traditional voicing techniques). The voicing technique of lighter hammers is substantially different compared to hot-n-heavy pressed hammers; that which is not allowable with high-tension hammers (i.e., it would destroy the tonal potential of the hammers), is absolutely necessary for good tone on lighter hammers. With really light hammers, one needs to [censored] the top of the hammer in a way that would be considered madness under normal conditions. Are we still on the same page, or have we crossed over into the deep-end yet? That's pretty punny for those experience with voicing lighter hammers.

Voicing under these lighter hammers mass conditions controls the colour, but not necessarily the thickness and attack/smack of the tone. In order to re-introduce the saturation that is lost by reducing hammer mass, the strike point should be lengthened/increased significantly: think insanity and you might get close. Larger strike points also help to minimise the craziness of the upper partials, and focus more the the energy back towards the fundamental. With heavy hammers, large strike points will break strings--this is not the case for lighter hammers.

Strike point size is about shaping the attack, focusing the overall energy (i.e., the smaller the strike point, the more the energy goes to the higher partials, instead of towards the fundamental), and reintroducing saturation into the louder dynamics. This is what is being balanced with strike point size. At a certain point, it is about the balance between tonal thickness and the saturation of the attack.

Hammer weight has more to do with action/keyboard functionality, and near the upper end of the piano: ensuring that the hammer is not also acting as a damper (i.e., tonally).

Try that again without the censored word...juice or beating the stike point up with needles? If juice, please be specific.

Large means what? flat? The words are too broad stroke to be clear. How about a pic or some other clear description of what that large strike point actually looks like in one example. I'm asking this, because way back when, in an ill fated(on this list) demonstration, (not the demonstration but the response) you posted re: unisons, what struck me was not so much the unisons as the shape of the tone which was quite beautiful. The shape of the attack was something I strive for, but don't always achieve...that is instantaneous crisp beginning of the sound, without the noise that most always accompanies instantaneous tone.


What do you mean by "saturation of the attack"


Though I agree with this including the non-damping high treble, this statement seems somewhat at odds with the rest of the above quoted post, where the effects you are eliciting are dealing with the tonal results of lighter hammers.

Jim Ialeggio

Lighter hammers require a hammer strike-point/top that is needled to death--from a traditional standpoint, that is. Basically, forget everything you think you know about voicing, and go to town all over the top of the hammers. Maybe try it with a spare hammer first.

Yah...the unisons and my refrigerator/compressor. I should have noticed, but it is always present for me, so I naturally just tune it out. I didn't really notice it until I was in a different part of the world and re-listened. I will post unions again in the future, and without the refrigerator, I promise they do not have that beat (i.e., which is consistent on all notes and chords, I might add). Regardless...yes, I mean flat...very flat...like mid-west and cornfields flat--as far as the eye can see. The hammers on that example were probably c.10mm at the time; I've filed them flatter since.

The saturation of the attack usually means that "noise that most always accompanies instantaneous tone." It is when the tone starts to break-up. I can do this with tuning (i.e., tuning DOA for more saturation, and anything else to avoid it) and/or by using a flatter hammer profile, or hard felt--also with the soundboard design, but that is a different discussion, perhaps.

Lighter hammers are make a huge difference tonally in the treble--because of contact time. In the tenor/bass, it makes a huge difference to the sound too, but for a different reason: the action can now function properly and is not limited by the weight of the hammer. After a certain reduction in weight in the bass, any more weight reduction doesn't really result in a better tone. In the treble, however, I still have not yet found what too light sounds like. In the bass I have. There is first and increase in dynamic response, because the action is working properly, and then after that, the sound start to loose something at its core.