hammer geometry

P.S. (where I wrote "equilateral trapezoid" I obviously meant isosceles...)

It is not a matter of equidistance from the bar. The hammers should be glued at 90° opp. 91-92°. It depends on how the manufacturer established it. What is important is to recalculate well or accurately copy the striking point, which might not be in a straight line, especially in the mid-high and high registers. Anyway, to avoid any misunderstanding, set aside the old hammers GLUED ONTO THE OLD SHANKs. This is to have a "history" and to observe any potential errors or variations. In some pianos, the striking point is "compensated" where the cast iron frame "bar" might be more or less imprecise. It is unknown whether these observations of yours originate from the different shape or length of the hammers???????

Never, I say NEVER, unglue the old hammers from the shanks; instead, mount the new hammer rail on new shanks. In fact, if a question arises in the future regarding suspected errors, it will be impossible to trace back to the original situation!!!!!!!

I thank you.

I perfectly agree, in fact I have yet to perform the work: I have not removed the hammers installed on the current shanks by previous owners, nor have I glued on the new Renner hammer heads that I have just received from the Mother House (they are still in their paper, packaged...): in fact, I still need to order the new series of wippens complete with rods and rollers....

Simply put, in the past I had to correct some things on the old ones because, even for the reasons I will try to explain below, in my opinion a good job had not been done:

Yes, there are small differences in height-drilling, a few millimeters lower for Abel, and also between the lengths of the tails of the hammer heads that I received from the Mother House, 2 millimeters longer for Abel (I attach a photo).

My observations, however, arose from my previous "correction" work (if that is indeed what it was): one day, looking closely at the action, I noticed that the previous owner who had glued the old hammers, in the area after the break between trebles and the central zone, i.e., starting from the mids, had glued them noticeably deeper, by at least half a centimeter if not more; this seemed unnatural to me since, in photos seen on the internet, I have never noticed anything like it, neither on my brand of piano (Schimmel) nor on my model of piano - nor even in photos of any other type of action that I have looked at. So I tried to make everything look as normal as possible visually.

In general, how many degrees does the Schimmel company require?

Let's start with the "correction". The suspected error might be exactly that compensation that Schimmel had established in that section!!!!! Now that it has been "corrected," we don't know if the piano sounded better with that different beat point in that area. Some Steinways even have these compensations!

Second: It is advisable to use hammers that come from the Manufacturer, provided they are of the same drilling and height as the originals. New shanks are perfectly fine....but with that "correction," something has changed.....I don't understand why you say: "previous owner". Aren't the original hammers mounted by Schimmel? (perhaps I don't remember some previous post). In any case, it would be worth writing to the manufacturer and asking for the hammer specifications for that serial number.

pianoexpert wrote:

7 hours ago, pianoexpert said:

Let's start with the "correction". The suspected error might be exactly that compensation that Schimmel had established in that section!!!!! Now that it has been "corrected", we don't know if the piano sounded better with that different beat point in that area. Some Steinways even have these compensations!

Second: It is advisable to use hammers that come from the Parent Company, provided they are of the same drilling and height as the originals. New shanks are perfectly fine.... but with that "correction" something has changed..... I don't understand why you say: "old owner". Aren't the original hammers installed by Schimmel? (perhaps I don't remember some previous post). In any case, it would be worth writing to the parent company and asking for the hammer specifications for that serial number.

I apologize, I expressed myself poorly. Since I purchased it (used), the piano has been fitted with the Abel [hammers] shown in the photo, although at the time of purchase I was unaware of everything (later I found out for certain because I read that the soundboard wood is branded Abel).

While the hammer on the left in the photo, Renner, is part of the new series of hammers that I have just received, by providing the serial number to the Parent Company through the company Piatino.

I had never, before now, seen the original hammer set of this piano.

P.S. With the term "original" in the previous comments, I was not referring to "what was there originally" (which I never had, nor saw; in fact, I am not even sure that the current action parts installed by Abel are the ones with which the piano was born...)

I would never modify a Schimmel glue job... of course not! On the contrary, my intention would be to try to get as close as possible to factory conditions...

However, I have not yet purchased the set of actions complete with capstans and hammer regulating tools, simply because I am not sure that the "pin-to-center distance of the regulating tool" at 17 mm would satisfy me from a touch perspective. I like the achievement of forte to be more difficult, as was used on older instruments, and I would like to make some attempts on a hammer, first trying with some actions where this distance is less than 17 mm...

In my opinion, there is no doubt that that measurement must be 17 mm. If you tell me you have this doubt, does it mean the current hammers are mounted on 16.5-16mm shanks? Absolutely outdated!!!! It's not a matter of being "stronger" or "more difficult." It is a wrong opinion to think that if one works on a "more difficult" piano, then one develops a "disadvantaged" technique that pays off more when playing on an easier piano.

Schimmel is born with Renner hammers.

You must absolutely check, after mounting a hammer on a 17mm shank and regulating it to approximately 45mm from the string, if the inner line of the repetition lever coincides with the inner line of the roller core, determining a straight continuous line. If so, the drilling is correct. If the line is not continuous, verify the drilling. Also verify the position of the bridge. Steinway, up to a certain year, mounted 16mm shanks. In the original Hamburg Manual, it recommends moving back the bridge cap forked parts by 1 mm, precisely to obtain the alignment of the repetition lever in a straight line with the new 17mm shanks.

Mounting other shanks (16mm_16.5mm) would mean "going backwards!!!"

Another thing: it's not certain that the guy who mounted the Abels made a mistake. You must take the exact length of the strings in that section and see if, recalculating the striking point, there should be a compensation shift (due to a casting error or a shift of the cast iron frame BAR). OK?

Good luck

Paolo Ferrarelli

P.S. It's not certain that with this new hammer setup the piano will sound better. The important thing is to prepare the hammers well (impregnation and voicing!!!), ...actually... in general Abel manufactures hammers that are almost ready, which require little voicing. Furthermore, not all hammer setups have the same compression, so you must identify the degree of compression in order to work little on the hammers. This Abel does it upon request.

pianoexpert wrote:

5 hours ago, pianoexpert said:

If you tell me you have this doubt, it means the current hammers are mounted on 16.5-16 shanks? Absolutely outdated!!!! It is not a matter of being much "more difficult". It is a wrong opinion.

Thank you, Maestro. No, the current shanks are 17 mm.

I should clarify that I did not make this consideration regarding the shanks for the reason you rightly pointed out: I do not think at all that one needs a more difficult keyboard to "develop muscles".

Rather, it is an interpretative need that comes from my current experience (which does NOT concern the undisputed quality of the Abel hammer action) but rather the type of conception Schimmel has regarding the philosophy of touch, because in my personal idea of touch, I would like to obtain greater dynamic nuances by having a different sensation when reaching forte:

a this regard, I have currently mounted a strip of cloth behind the upper part of the bridge pin/bridge support; the "inspiration" came to me because in the action I had already found mounted - on the front part of the action rail, instead - another strip of cloth left by whoever had done the previous work (I felt this idea was excellent, so much so that at first I tried to remove it as an experiment, but after that I liked the piano less, so I put it back).

Regarding regulation, before arriving at this, I had already made a thousand attempts by moving the escapements further away, but I was not satisfied. I also centered the entire action with a paper-shim correction and made everything equidistant.

I do not know the precise reasons for these before/after sensations, unfortunately, as I am not a technician, but the change to my very personal taste has been significant from a musical point of view.

The only thing I wonder is whether it is better to have a strip of cloth behind the bridge support, or to try putting a 16.5 shank directly (or if these are two technically completely different things....)

Personally, I have always had the feeling that, in all the Schimmels I have tried, there is a philosophy that one must achieve forte with less than half of the pianist's strength... but I "feel" it differently on a musical level...

I should also clarify that personally I have always felt the Abel hammers sound good (the only problem was not caused by the Abels, but rather by the fact that some lead weights had been added to the tails, which I subsequently removed), and in the meantime that all this was happening, to remedy problems not dependent on tuning, some hammers were ruined by interventions on the tuning itself, and so far I have not been able to enjoy the instrument....

P.S. To express myself even more clearly, the sensation I obtained from the strip behind the music rest's forcola is not, in fact, that of a "harder" key (which is not what I am looking for), but a different sensation when managing dynamics.... in fact, to me it paradoxically seems lighter, but it changes the "power" of the attack... this is what I perceived.

*abrasive cloth

But certainly, because, probably, that alignment I already mentioned is established. Lead weights on the hammer tails? I would say absolutely no!

The key weighting must be lightened if the hammer action is lighter!! This way, the correct downward weight is restored relative to the return weight without altering inertia! In fact... by facilitating it. Increasing the weighting instead, especially on the hammers, distorts and makes dynamics difficult. If the manufacturer now makes lighter hammers with greater compression and power, that's a good thing! Even Steinway has lightened the hammers over time. Good! Less weighting at the key for the same downward and return weight, with more "liveliness" in the movement of the entire action!

Let's make an example: Let's get a balance scale with opposing pans and observe the different liveliness of movement if we balance 100 grams per side or... one kilogram per side!!!!! In the first case, inertia is lower. In the second, higher. And yet we have the same condition of equilibrium.

So, if at the key we have a downward weight that is too low and we want to increase it, we must not increase the mass by counterbalancing with more lead beyond the fulcrum, or even by weighting the hammer tails, but rather we must remove lead from the front part of the keyboard. Always keep the return weight and the friction of the action under control.)

pianoexpert wrote:

11 hours ago, pianoexpert said:

But certainly, because, probably, that alignment I already mentioned is established. Lead weights on the hammer tails? I would say absolutely no!

The key weighting must be lightened if the hammer action is lighter!! This way, the correct downward weight is restored relative to the return weight without altering inertia! In fact... by facilitating it. Increasing the weighting instead, especially on the hammers, distorts and makes dynamics difficult. If the manufacturer now makes lighter hammers with greater compression and power, that's a good thing! Even Steinway has lightened the hammers over time. Good! Less weighting at the key for the same downward and return weight, with more "liveliness" in the movement of the entire action!

Let's make an example: Let's get a balance scale with opposing pans and observe the different liveliness of movement if we balance 100 grams per side or... 1 kilogram per side!!!!! In the first case, inertia is lower. In the second, higher. Yet we have the same equilibrium condition.

So, if at the key we have a downward weight that is too low and we want to increase it, we must not increase the mass by counterbalancing with more lead beyond the fulcrum or even by weighting the hammer tails; rather, we must remove lead from the front part of the keyboard. Always keep under control the return weight and the friction of the action)

Absolutely true! I have rewatched the tutorials many times..

I still remember with pleasure another one of your examples on the Forum that left an impression on me, when you compared the piano key to what would result from pushing a heavy Limousine versus a light 500, evaluating what happens to uniform rectilinear motion in both cases.

I admit that while I was enjoying the greater nuances obtained by removing the lead weights in the tails, I reflected on it and it helped me understand the concept well!

I would have a question regarding the additional strip of abrasive cloth that whoever did the work placed under the front part of the rod forks (shown below in the photo), what do you advise me to do? (It is clearly a posthumous addition, since there is already another large sheet underneath).

Reasoning about this, I got the idea that it contributes to bringing the roller closer to the capstan, somewhat as if it were thicker? I wouldn't know, I always go by hypothesis, as you can imagine... The sensation, for me, was a lesser feeling of "emptiness" under the key compared to when I tried to remove it..

Should I remove it while installing the new wippens?

in that position it doesn't change anything! In fact, the center pin of the forcola does not result in being higher. The sensation of emptiness can depend on many things. There must be a proportion between the weight of the hammer and the key weighting. I take the liberty of saying that one should not form too many ideas about "sensations," because, perhaps it is not your case, one sometimes ends up getting confused and not following a linear reasoning. There are some verification measurements that cannot be explained in words because they must be seen, given their interdependence. If in the repetition there is a sense of delay in the key return, it could depend on the incorrect proportion of mechanical friction, as well as the position of the roller, the key weighting, etc....

That strip only serves to prevent the forcole from moving or vibrating. But it seems superfluous to me because the bar is already provided with sandpaper that helps with tightening. You can therefore remove it. Unless the original pins (are these them?) were with a thinner forcola! Then the height of the center pin changes!

pianoexpert wrote:

9 hours ago, pianoexpert said:

A meno che gli stiletti originali ( sono questi?) non fossero con la forcola meno spessa! Allora cambia l'altezza del perno di centro!

Exactly... I don't know if the technician who changed the hammer rail before I purchased the instrument also replaced the forcole and stiletti in addition to the hammers... it is quite possible that the new stiletti he installed had thinner forcole than the original ones.. who knows if the wood of the current ones is maple or hornbeam..

All this is a very complicated job for me, as it is the first time I am delving into it.

But I have no choice and I will not give up; as I told you some time ago, many misled me into thinking that after their extremely expensive "complete regulation" at home I would be satisfied, only to then disappear.. one of them took 500 euros for an afternoon... as if I were swimming in gold, among other things... and the worst thing is that afterwards the instrument objectively sounded worse than before; after he groomed the hammers, the intonation defects that were there increased, one key sounded bright and one was voiceless, but for him the instrument was fine (for the record, he was an AIARP member.... which should say that being one is not necessarily synonymous with quality as many think...).

I repeat this deliberately also for those reading, and because I would absolutely not want to come across as a person who has the presumption to "replace the technician" or boast of all the knowledge that I currently do not have; I would never allow myself to do so... On the contrary, I advise anyone against doing such a job themselves if they have a competent Technician like you on their side.

Thank you again and have a good Sunday!

Don't worry at all about what you are saying! Combing the hammers is a heresy!!!!! The fact that it is maple or hornbeam is irrelevant. However, the thickness of the hammer rail can change the height of the hammer center pin and modify its performance. From what you are telling me, the hammer rail has been treated incorrectly. Intervening by "combing" means covering up both merits and defects.... but it has nothing to do with hammer voicing!!!!! I believe that, over time, you will have to replace it. An expert technician needs to recheck the entire geometry of the action. It is a delicate matter and there are some "alarm bells" that tell us what error was committed. I always get angry because (I am telling you this privately) those who handle an instrument poorly "erase" the traces of the past, so that any errors cannot be detected. Then they throw away the hammer rail, move everything around etc... and the piano no longer works. I am going crazy with a Kawai because all the strings are breaking and probably the hammers were glued without respecting the striking point!!!!!! So you must beware of people who change things without leaving a trace!!!! Sorry, but I can say clearly here in private. Try, then, to check following this succession of operations. Assuming that the drilling of the hammer rail is correct, adjust the hammer-to-string distance to about 45mm. Then check the alignment of the repetition lever with the inner line of the wooden core of the hammer felt (which must be of the type 17 mm center pin distance - center of the hammer felt core). Align it and it must form an absolutely straight line!!! If this is not the case, there is probably an error in the geometry: either a different hammer felt was mounted or the hammer rail is lower. You must be able to rebound well and play the forte properly. Furthermore, if adjusted correctly, the hammer flange, which should be at about 13-15 mm, must not catch the hammer during rebounding. Naturally, these are very rough indications, but from Rome to Messina they might be useful!!! Let me know

pianoexpert wrote:

On 29/3/2018 at 07:49, pianoexpert said:

Don't worry at all about what you are saying! Combing the hammers is a 'heresy!!!!! The fact that it is maple or hornbeam is irrelevant. Instead, the thickness of the hammer shank can change the height of the center pin of the hammer and modify its performance. From what you are telling me, the hammer rail has been treated incorrectly. To intervene by "combing" means to cover up both merits and defects....but it has nothing to do with the voicing of the hammers!!!!! I believe that, over time, you will have to replace it. An expert technician needs to recheck the entire geometry of the mechanics. It is a delicate matter and there are some "warning bells" that tell us what error was committed. I always get angry because (I'm telling you this privately) those who handle an instrument poorly "erase" the traces of the past, so that any errors cannot be detected. Then they throw away the hammer rail, move everything around etc... and the piano no longer works. I am going crazy with a Kawai because all the strings are breaking and probably the hammers were glued without respecting the striking point!!!!!! So you must beware of people who change things without leaving a trace!!!! Sorry, but I can say clearly here in private. Try, then, to check following this succession of operations. Assuming that the drilling of the hammer rail is correct, adjust the hammer-to-string distance to about 45mm. Then check the alignment of the escapement upright with the internal line of the wooden core of the roller (which must be of the type 17 mm center pin distance - roller core center). Align it and it must form an absolutely straight line!!! If this is not the case, there is probably an error in the geometry: either a different roller was mounted or the hammer shank is lower. You must be able to rebound well and perform the forte properly. Furthermore, if adjusted well, the hammer flange, which must be set at about 13-15 mm, must not jam the hammer during rebounding. Naturally, these are very rough indications, but from Rome to Messina, they can be useful!!! Let me know.

Thank you.… From what I can understand, I have just tried to check the alignment between the internal part of the roller core and the upright, with the hammer at 45mm from the string: to me it gives the impression that with the current strips, the thickness of which I have now measured (on the bridge shank, 0.70 mm, and on the post shank, 0.50 mm) everything seems to be perfectly in a straight line…

Maybe there really was one of those differences..

_________________

Apropos, perhaps there is a trace of the old hammer rail; I preferred not to say it before because unfortunately no one has ever confirmed it to me: it is the “anomalous” hammer of key 1 (I found it glued on the same series of shanks and posts as the current Abel ones).

I have been looking at it for a long time; it is a hammer with characteristics completely different both compared to the Abels that the piano currently mounts, but also different from the Renner hammers still in their packaging that Schimmel sent me, giving them the serial number…

Here it is (I am almost certain the felt of this hammer is Renner…. I recognized it by the very particular smell it emits).

What remains unchanged compared to the others, from what I have measured, is the total length, the drilling height, and the angle.

While the differences I have seen are:

-the shape, it seems evidently of the "rounded" type

-although it gives the impression of being larger, I weighed it, and I was surprised: just 10.02 grams (it weighs less than all others, both compared to the bass hammers of the new Renner series received from Schimmel, and the Abels)

- Another characteristic is that it is not stapled…

-The thickness is thinner… (10.5 mm, against the 11 mm of the other hammers).

I must say that the timbre of this hammer on the bass is VERY full-bodied and suitable for me, and I do not hide that I was hoping to receive an identical series from Schimmel, at least in the basses…. I had even tried it in the "less extreme" basses to hear its timbre…

What made me hope further to receive them identical, or at least in the basses (and it seemed to confirm to me that they were the originals), was that on Facebook I had found a photo of a series of Schimmel hammers that a customer had sent to Abel to try and re-felt, published on their page:

https://www.facebook.com/ABEL.Hammer.Company/photos/pcb.1330039293716482/1330038953716516/?type=3&theater

Don't you also think that the hammers in the photo are identical to that one?

My piano is from '91… maybe at Schimmel they have now changed their mind about the touch… and if that hammer on key 1 that I possess were indeed the original one, the new Renners that arrived to me are indeed heavier than the previous ones… by about 1.5 grams, which at"

the keys become many…

https://www.facebook.com/ABEL.Hammer.Company/photos/pcb.1330039293716482/1330038953716516/?type=3&theater

The keys must be weighed with the current hammer weight, and then one must decide if it is necessary to refine the hammer tails slightly, which would result in a loss of about 0.50 g. The size and weight depend on the compression. Today, there is a tendency towards smaller and more compressed hammers

Today I finally had the chance to measure the drop weight.

In theory, should the button lower until the repeater lever touches the escapement adjustment button?

Here, it usually drops 2-3 millimeters and stops.... anyway, there don't seem to be any frictions; I find them smooth. In the past there were some, and with ethyl alcohol, sprayed many times, I apparently solved the problem definitively (especially on the repeater lever pivot.). Unfortunately, several people had used lubricant before. However, I have never been able to verify the resistance of the pivots... due to a lack of the appropriate measuring tool, but also because I wouldn't know how to do it.

Anyway, if I weighed correctly, in the central octave the weight is 47-50 grams.

Mile instead, in the bass notes, it seems to be around 60 grams.

In the mid-high zone, the weight seems to be on average around 47-44 grams.

And the return weight. No lubricant on the pins, nor alcohol! The friction is just right when the fork falls slowly and uniformly under its own screw weight.

The important thing is the return weight!!!!!!

pianoexpert wrote:

On 5/4/2018 at 23:05, pianoexpert said:

And the return weight. No lubricant on the pins, no alcohol! The friction is just right when the capstan falls slowly and uniformly under its own screw weight.

The important thing is the return weight!!!!!!

Here they are, I had noted them down on a sheet convinced I had copied them here.... The return on the bass seems to be about 22-23 grams... in the central zone 25-26, while on the treble around 27...

The repetition usually works, but I perceive a certain hardness of the keyboard, which I believe is due to the somewhat voiceless sound caused by the pricking of the hammer from whoever intervened, which formed visible woolly "bumps" on the cheeks, after I complained about too much attack... to me it seemed like an unorthodox method... I hear the sound as too woolly, both in the pianissimo and fortissimo zones.