I had the hammer rail changed on my Bechstein, and after the change, the sound was very angular, especially in the highs where it even crackles if chords are played.
Last week I happened to notice that the numbering of the hammers is not regular.
Numbers 17, 31 and 32, 44 and 46, and the last little hammer 93 are skipped.
Practically from the fifth octave onwards, the hammer I find on the E is that of the next one, and so on for all of them.
Testing by moving the hammers to their correct positions, the sound improves significantly, but I am missing 5 hammers.
What I am asking is:
Was it a mistake by the technician, or does it happen that the numbering of the hammers sent by Renner can be missing some numbers?
It is absolutely not an error. The hammers have extra hammers. The technician must choose those closest in size (and obviously in drilling angle) to the sample ones. The sharper sound depends on the type of voicing and also on the type of felt. Current Bechstein hammers (Renner for Bechstein) are not suitable for vintage Bechsteins, which have a different structure and, above all, are lighter. The sound changes significantly. Unless they were made based on a sample. I also hope that the shape of their shanks was respected. I advise demanding the return of the old ones, to preserve the original identity of the instrument, which should be considered historical and very special. Regards
I had the hammers returned; the installed hammer rail is a Renner for Bechstein, and the sound is truly incomparable to the previous sound.
Perhaps the criterion used was the one you mentioned, but by trying to move some hammers to the correct position, the sound is significantly better, much less angular, and richer in harmonics and resonance.
Regarding the quality of the Renner hammer rail for Bechstein, I have no doubts!!! I just wanted to point out that it is much heavier than the one from the past. How are the dynamics and the inertia of the action after this replacement? If satisfactory, ok. Then, the sound can be improved with good voicing. The fact remains that the felt of today's Bechstein hammer rails, which I repeat are still excellent, is denser and develops a more "edgy" sound. I remember with pleasure my conversations with the great Daniel Magne, Tuner and Technician for the greatest pianists. A distinction was made, which he reports in his book, outlining the "romantic sound" and the "modern sound." Romantic-sounding pianos had lighter and less dense hammer rails, and a much less loaded soundboard. Modern-sounding ones, which prioritize strong attack, have strong and dense hammers, also impregnated, and more—too much—loaded soundboards. These latter ones are also intended for large halls. Even Bechstein, a symbol of the great sound of the past—sweet, romantic, rich in "half-tints"—is proposed today with a more aggressive sound suited to large listening spaces. Both are great instruments, but of different historical conceptions and craftsmanship.
Therefore, in my opinion, when replacing certain parts of period instruments, especially those that greatly affect the sound and dynamics (such as hammer rails), I prefer to maintain the identity of the instrument and its sound as much as possible. This is possible by having the hammers made according to samples, in shape, weight, and compression density. This is my thought, I reiterate, without taking anything away from the Renner excellence "for Bechstein" and from the two different historical construction philosophies of this great piano manufacturer.
