Maybe the hammers sound softer because they are still wet? At least it could be an attempt (after consulting a local expert) to put the complete mechanics out of the piano, that is very easyly done. And to let the hammers dry out that way because outside the still wet piano it dries better (maybe with help of a fan). On the other side it is maybe not good if it dries too fast. Nevertheless perhaps something can be done without spending too much money.
I have an old upright in my holiday house, and transported it on a car trailer with a cover. Unfortunately there was a gap in the lower side of the cover, and the rain during the transport went through the complete trailer, and I needed to drive for 6 hours. How was I pleased that after removing all outer parts of the piano, and whipping all water away, this over 100 year old lady seems to have survived that trouble.
Maybe the costs for restauration are less than you think, and Yamaha is a quality label, every part should be able to be replaced. Hammers can be replaced regardless which brand. The facturer get some hammers and produced it after that. A complete set of new hammerheads cost some hundred dollars, but the piano needs to be intonated again, what costs much more than new hammerfelts, unfortunately.

Well, it is frustrating because we have already had the piano worked on three times, and many things replaced already. Could the hammers really still be wet, after almost two years?

I dunno. If the hammers are dry but still too soft, they can be hardened by applying laquer to the hammerfelts. You could ask the tuner what laquer he/she uses for that purpose, and take an injection to apply this to the hammers which are too soft. If it is kind of last chance and the risk is low because the piano is on the border to deletion, I would have no constraint to do it myself if I were you. The alternatives are new hammerheads or hammerfelts.

Maybe better to put that problem in the Piano thread, because way OT?

I completely understand why some people need to use digital pianos. I knew nothing about digital pianos before hearing them on this site. I thought they were just called "keyboards" and were used exclusively in pop music. It was surprising to me to hear some of the good quality recordings submitted using digital pianos. Even though I would much rather hear recordings of acoustic pianos, I welcome members to use their digital pianos if that's their only alternative.

I know nothing about editing or midi files and all of those other gimmicks used to "fix" some recordings. I would probably be tempted to "cheat" if I knew how to. But I'm just an old fart who enjoys the old-fashioned acoustical pianos.

I do hope that those members who edit out wrong notes, or change the tempo, and such using electronic tools are honest enough to divulge that information.

I completely understand why some people need to use digital pianos. I knew nothing about digital pianos before hearing them on this site. I thought they were just called "keyboards" and were used exclusively in pop music. It was surprising to me to hear some of the good quality recordings submitted using digital pianos. Even though I would much rather hear recordings of acoustic pianos, I welcome members to use their digital pianos if that's their only alternative.

I know nothing about editing or midi files and all of those other gimmicks used to "fix" some recordings. I would probably be tempted to "cheat" if I knew how to. But I'm just an old fart who enjoys the old-fashioned acoustical pianos.

I do hope that those members who edit out wrong notes or change the tempo and such using electronic tools are honest enough to divulge that information.

>
I know nothing about editing or midi files and all of those other gimmicks used to "fix" some recordings. I would probably be tempted to "cheat" if I knew how to. But I'm just an old fart who enjoys the old-fashioned acoustical pianos.


Hi John,
I agree with your considerations:
1) in absolute, theorical better condition, tha acustical are the best.
2) often, in the concrete life, a good digital permit to work (practise, playing and recording)
with some advantages.


>
I do hope that those members who edit out wrong notes, or change the tempo, and such using electronic tools are honest enough to divulge that information.

And this is a good question.
My recording technique:
from audio out of the piano directly to the PC.
I use "Total recorder" software to help myself (no problem to admit):
I record different versions of not less than 2 minutes parts of music of a piece (or the music there is on two pages, my problem is that I play seeing the score), then I choice the preferred
and paste them. Some examples: one Scarlatti sonata with 2 "takes", my Polonaise.Fantaisie
are 4 "takes", shorter pieces with an unique "take".
My idea is that my recordings must be an image of my pianism: in a very relaxed and happy
moment, in a moment choosen by me, but an image of my pianism.
I do not use other editing skills, but I have a good opinion of the ones (the best IMHO:
John Lewis Grant. A rare example of MIDI pianism that sounds less MIDI than many celebated pianists) which use a decleared, strong MIDI editing, if they research (and it is the Grant's case)
a creative and "human" way to control the parameters of an interpretation.
But it is not my way: I prefer this softer (but very useful if I will to play and to record an high number of the pieces I love) kind of editing.

All best,
Sandro.

P.S.

Excellent your Brahms, IMHO.

I do on occasion cut out a wrong note or passage or a hesitation, when it is easy to do so. More often than not though, it only makes things worse and I have to leave it as is. I also occasionally paste parts of tracks together. It gets less though and my aim is to avoid it altogether.
On two occasions I have decreased the volume of a crucial chord that came out far too loud, but I feel rotten about that and will not do this it anymore. I'd never manipulate the pitch, or insert notes, or tricks like that.

For me almost the same as with Chris - here and there I cut/paste the piece together from 2 takes, on larger pieces, and also cut a prelude and fugue from WTC together instead playing the fugue immediately after the prelude. Because I usually play a piece like a prelude several times in a row and select afterwards which take I use, same for the fugue.
I never did any dynamic editings or pitch manipulations or something else beside normalizing the volume to standard volume and adding reverb (what often makes the thing not better either).

Since it's "True Confessions" time - I'm getting better at cut and paste, and on pieces that are more than three pages, I usually have around ten takes because it takes me half a day to record and I never get one single good one. I also one time tried to manipulate the dynamics on a particular phrase, but then noticed that when you do that, the background "hiss" or "static" changes from the surrounding sound and it's a dead giveaway, so I won't be doing that again. Tried to once edit out a mistake and erased half the recording so won't be doing that, either. There...I feel better, now.

> Since it's "True Confessions" time -........

It's really so.....

It seems that all you, Olaf, Chris and me are using a similar quantity and kind of editing tools.
I think this is a good measure, and I hope we'll be absolved......

All best,
Sandro

Sandro, everyone has maybe different opions on where cheating starts and ends. To cut and paste a part of an audio take from another take is maybe not the most honest matter, but it seems to be done in professional recordings and also from some of us here, also in my case I did on some recordings. But at least the thing was played that way on the piano.

However, a MIDI edited file is something what I personally would call a real fake if it is not clearly mentioned that it is done. Because the result steems not only what the hands have performed on the keyboard, it steems also from the much more easy (but has nothing to do with artistical work on the piano) handy editing - wrong note replacements, dynamic adding, speed changing and so on and so on.

And since you mentioned those MIDI works by J.L.Grant, e.g. his WTC recordings, I really regret that they are listed as "normal" recordings (it is mentioned that it is MIDI work, but not cleary separated enough from real recordings, IMHO). I also don't like his takes - it sounds typical MIDI like to me - cold, bloodless, steril, unreal perfectly. Nothing for the heart, so I think - but that is what is music all about. So it misses the main thing what is needed to be good music - it comes not from heart and therefore goes not to heart. Highly personal opinion of course!!!

>
And since you mentioned those MIDI works by J.L.Grant, e.g. his WTC recordings, ....

But I agree at 99% with your considerations.
Only IMHO these Grant Bach recording are different from the common MIDI files as you and
I know (and do not love) them.

All best,
Sandro.