Hammer felt function

Thank you for asking this question, I am also very curious to hear Pianoexpert! I am not a technician, but the difference I perceived when my piano's hammer rail was replaced with the appropriate one from the manufacturer (in the points where there was previously more felt and instead it should have been conical until disappearing in the high notes, the cantabile zone), was a more "piquant" sound but at the same time a bit more "nasal" and cantabile... before, it was as if in that point -where the felt should have been missing, according to the design- something was wrong.

I imagine it depends on how the portions of string that generate the partials are designed. In my opinion, one must strictly respect the manufacturer's choices.... although I would like to know, for example, if technicians sometimes use hammer rails with different felt and head thicknesses based on the pianist's taste... but I wouldn't know if this leads to good results, I honestly don't think so..

The difference is made by the different compression. In the past, the felt padding made a slight difference, but today one can request different compressions and manufacturers choose hammers dictated by their construction "philosophy" of sound. Color is only a matter of tradition to recognize originality. Steinway's purple is recognizable, but it can be imitated, as can all other colors. Color makes no difference. Compression!!!! And... the right tuning!!!!!! What Musik feels is wrong depends on the tuning and the type of hammer structure requested. However, a modern-made hammer cannot be the same as one from the remote past, built—by choice and by technology—in a different way, unless today's manufacturer is able and willing to perfectly "copy" the structure of those hammers. For example, the old Bechstein (we can still see them today on some historical instruments) had no felt padding. Yet the sound of those instruments is sweet.

The so-called "romantic" sound, as the great and late technician Daniel Magne—with whom I studied in Paris in the 70s—well defined it, differs from the modern sound. The sound has changed... we have changed. The former was obtained with less thick, less compressed hammers, less loaded soundboards, a less aggressive attack transient, less sound decay.... a little less clarity in rapid passages. It requires precise pedaling. Pedal used predominantly on the downbeat (absolutely see Chopin's pedals, especially on waltzes and Mazurkas!!!!! Pedal not "changed" but almost always "placed" on strong accents and on the first beat, to be released on the third.... even today, downbeat pedaling is very successfully and precisely used). The second ("modern" sound) is intended for large halls: compressed and impregnated hammers, more loaded soundboards (sometimes too much!!), greater sound decay after the attack transient which results in being "brilliant" (also a term of Magne's). Greater clarity in rapid passages. Easier to pedal. (This is in tight synthesis... but the subject should be developed).

In short, sound is an acoustic fact but also a "cultural" one. The Hamburg Steinways are prepared in a way that satisfies our European culture. A bit different is the New York one, with a slightly more aggressive sound. American culture is certainly different from European culture... we won't dwell on this here....

Therefore, many choices must be made before replacing a hammer set, especially in older pianos! Then the sound must be prepared according to the listening environment and according to the pianist's expectations. While watching them play, the technician should understand what "personal image of sound" they are seeking and approach their "sonic desires."

The old hammer set MUST NEVER BE THROWN AWAY!!!! It is a precious witness to how the sound was constructed on that instrument!!!! I WILL NEVER FINISH REITERATING THIS

Good Music to all

Forgive me, but I still haven't understood the function of the underfelt. I seem to intuit that it serves to "soften" the sound, which made a difference in the past, whereas today different felt compressions can be obtained; right? Let's get practical: what would a Steinway manufacturer want to achieve differently by using the underfelt from a manufacturer like my Pleyel/Schimmel (which lacks underfelt) or from that of my upright Kawai (with underfelt except on the treble)?

By the way: when will there be a video on the different construction philosophies of various houses?

francescochopin90 wrote:

1 hour ago, francescochopin90 said:

Excuse me, but I still haven't understood the function of the underfelt. I seem to intuit that it serves to "soften" the sound, which made a difference in the past, whereas today different felt compressions can be obtained; right? Let's get practical: what would a Steinway manufacturer want to achieve differently by using underfelt compared to, for example, the manufacturer of my Pleyel/Schimmel (which lacks underfelt) or that of my Kawai upright (with underfelt except on the highs)?

As Pianoexpert wrote much better than I could, if I understood correctly, there are a series of factors that contribute to the construction of the sound, not least the hammer preparation, i.e., voicing... but that anyway, given the same type of felt, workmanship, preparation, and compression of a hammer's felt, the greater the amount of underfelt, the more the touch will, to a certain extent, "soften" equally. This does not change, however, the fact that an old-style hammer, even if lacking underfelt (but with other construction characteristics - for example, less compression -) can still sound sweeter than a modern hammer with a lot of underfelt.... in short, everything is relative.

Furthermore, if I understood correctly, the fact that hammers are more compressed today greatly reduces the "sonic influence" that the amount of underfelt has, even though this obviously exists, so much so that manufacturers continue to use different amounts of underfelt based on the section where the hammer is located (still often the underfelt thins out and disappears from the cantabile zone upwards towards the end of the highs).

I hope I have clarified... if I said anything wrong, please correct me!

____________

@Pianoexpert I am actually afraid that I prefer old pianos! The Bechsteins are magnificent, Lipatti's sound... I have played and listened to many instruments, but when I play on modern pianos I always have the impression that something is missing in the construction of the sound, and that I am forced to act in a way that does not fully represent what I would like to say... even the management of dynamics becomes quite different. It is much more difficult to proceed by gradations and create climaxes... even after having tried every possible type of regulation and voicing.

Just in case... "you will correct me", as John Paul II said!!!!! You are right in what you say, Musik. For Pio: We cannot make comparisons, we can only understand what sound the Maker wants. With courageous voicing one can modify the sound, but one must respect what the House intended. In my multi-year research, I have found that there are Steinways that do not sound right because they used incorrect and/or original hammers that were not impregnated. Every House embraces a procedure that includes various variables. Let's say that the felt padding, being able to be differently compressed, can create a good "intermediary" between the felt-hammer and the wooden soundboard, but it is not certain that this is always strictly necessary. One thing can be in favor of the felt padding, and that is that during shaving and approaching the wood grain, the timbral jump is less evident, more "accompanied". That's what I think.

Good Music

GREAT PAOLO!!