Hi, I want to let you all know there are quite a few of us out here who do
not always appear on your pages, but do follow the threads - and really
appreciate it. Thanks.
Following up a bit on Dave Forman's earlier questions re: Salary, etc.,
would everyone please forward one bit more information. What is the typical
budget for maintenance. If you would, would you please state the
institution (if you don't mind), the number of pianos and the annual dollar
budgeted - not for wages, just parts or sent out jobs. We have a new
Department Chair who is on fire for beefing up the program - when that
happens how can one refuse. Thanks very much. Sam Marquez, Rowan
University (Glassboro State College) New Jersey
-----Original Message-----
From: caut-digest <owner-caut-digest@ptg.org>
To: caut-digest@ptg.org <caut-digest@ptg.org>
Date: Monday, March 01, 1999 8:24 PM
Subject: caut-digest V1997 #121
>
>caut-digest Monday, March 1 1999 Volume 1997 : Number 121
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:24:40 CST
>From: musutton@alpha.nlu.edu
>Subject: Grand Dampers, Quick out and in
>
>Dear Avery,
> Do I note a certain phobia about grand dampers in your post?
> Bill Spurlock has designed two tools for grand damper installation.
>One is a padded, cove-cut, weighted block which sits on 15 dampers at a
time,
>aligning them, seating them and resisting the tendency they have to twirl
when
>the little screw is tightened. The other is a T-shaped under lever jig
that is
>easy to adjust and very stable. They make damper installation fun. One
quick
>pass and you're at the fine adjusting stage. In a case like your Kawai,
put
>the block on a row of dampers and set the under lever jig before before you
>dismantle the system. When you're ready to re-install it goes right to the
>timing it had before.
> These tools are not for sale, but he will sell you some plans called
>"One Dozen Home Made Tools" for $2. (They can also be made at work, if you
get
>paid by the hour.) If the design was published in the Journal, I don't
recall.
> Schaff sells the damper screw regulator you mention, #4107.
>
>Regards,
>- -Ed Sutton-
> musutton@alpha.nlu.edu
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:28:39 EST
>From: Gilreath@aol.com
>Subject: Celeste
>
>List,
>
>If you're planning on attending this summer's Convention in Kansas City
then
>we have a treat for you. If not, maybe we can find a way to change your
mind.
>
>This year we are offering a brand new class entitled: The Celeste: Its
>Development, Its Function, Its Service taught by Urs Bachmann. Mr.
Bachmann
>has extensive experience in this area and it will be a great area for all
of
>us to add to our arsenal of experience. You never know when someone will
>donate one of these to your institution, someone will decide to work one
into
>the budget or a visiting ensemble will have a problem with theirs.
>
>In addition to Ken Sloane's wonderful class on a second action for a piano,
>the CAUT Forum panel discussion and all of the other great programs being
>presented (a number of the instructors are regular members of this list)
this
>class is a good reason to attend and participate.
>
>Think about it and we hope to see you there.
>
>Allan
>
>Allan L. Gilreath, RPT
>Assistant Institute Director
>Berry College
>Gilreath Piano & Organ Co.
>Calhoun, GA USA
>Gilreath@ail.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:31:34 -0600
>From: "Richard Moody" <remoody@easnet.net>
>Subject: Re: S & S capo
>
>Seems like it would be easier to machine a groove and put in a steel rod.
>Also seems like this or case hardening would be done at the factories if
>the factories thought it was really worth it. Maybe the key word is
>"worth". I thought someone was going to make a device that would re-round
>or re-machine the cap bar. What ever became of that? Is there a capo bar
>in existance that does not have grooves or pits in it from the wires? So
>this has been a problem ever since day one of the first c bar.
>Richard Moody
>
>- ----------
>> From: fred s sturm <fssturm@unm.edu>
>> To: caut@ptg.org
>> Subject: Re: S & S capo
>> Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 11:52 AM
>>
>> Horace wrote about the proper treatment being to "case harden" the capo.
>I
>> remember reading about this possibility about 15 years ago in the PTJ
>> (Krefting was editing then), but haven't been able to locate the article
>> in years since. Maybe it was in the one or two issues I've misplaced.
>> Anyway, can anyone shed light on this? What is involved? (I seem to
>> remember removal of plate, and use of some sort of torch, with precise
>> temperature control being mandatory, or the whole effort was not only
>> wasted, but matters were made worse). Anyone doing this? Experiences?
>>
>> Fred S. Sturm, RPT
>> University of New Mexico
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 03:35:09 EST
>From: Bdshull@aol.com
>Subject: Re: S & S capo/Case hardening
>
>Fred,
>
>Some ramblings about re-hardening the "V" bar. I also noted Horace's
comments
>about case hardening the capo. In the late 80's I decided to experiment
with
>a Steinway "V" (49" vertical) which had been beaten to death at the
university
>(by this time it was my piano). I found a local welder and explained what
I
>wanted to do. He used a TIG welder and reflowed the outer surface (less
than
>1mm) of the "v" bar, then lightly ground it smooth (it actually looked
quite
>good after the reflowing; little grinding was necessary). I did not
instruct
>him to make any changes to the original contour. I was very happy with the
>results.
>
>I have discussed re-hardening the capo with various individuals. Many were
>with manufacturers reps or taught courses in the PTG. There seemed to be a
>lack of interest, and some ridiculed the need for rehardening the v bar.
>However, at the time ('87 or so) Bill Garlick said that Steinway had begun
the
>practice of hardening the capo on their grands, and he felt it was
essential
>and was an improvement.
>
>I attended a class at the 1999 California State Convention taught by Paul
>Revenko Jones - a very interesting discussion of string termination. Paul
had
>no experience with rehardening and was not able to shed light on the idea,
>except to say that a plate is typically harder at the surface and that we
>should be careful about reshaping the capo too exuberantly, to avoid losing
>this harder surface.
>
>I believe that many heavily used performance pianos have damaged "V" bars
and
>would benefit from re-hardening with a TIG welder. The TIG welder quickly
>reflows the outer surface of the plate at the "V" bar without affecting the
>subsurface, so is the ideal welding technique. However, the grand plate
must
>be removed and may have to be carted to the welder. Of course, the "V" bar
is
>a very important spatial point which must be kept - relocation of that
point
>would be a very bad idea.
>
>The front termination is a series of compromises, the right combination of
>which may produce good tone - sometimes interesting, ugly from up close,
but
>beautiful and powerful tone. The danger is to err too far one way or the
>other with these compromises.
>
>I believe that many of the problems we have with zinging and buzzing are
the
>result of the need for treble restringing - but the harder capo surface may
>contribute to the need for replacement of strings; this we cannot avoid.
Ed
>McMorrow's ideas about a very narrow "V" bar made sense; the problem is
that
>the softer, more narrow surface may not hold up well. However, a broad,
round
>"V" bar may have too large a curve for a clean termination (as Paul Revenko
>Jones explained, it damps more partials). The harder surface might result
in
>more breakage, but the softer surface might deteriorate quickly. Although
I
>am not a metallurgist, it seems to me that the harder "V" bar seems to be
the
>way to go. Frequent restringing (5 to 20 years for a performance piano) of
>the treble is part of that formula - something usually done anyway with the
>performance piano.
>
>How desirable a softer or harder surface is, and how this relates to
>termination and the production of tone, is partly a decision that might be
>made first; if you must have a softer "V" bar for your desired, then you
>better not TIG weld. But I don't have any solutions to a deteriorated "V"
>bar.
>
>I service an old "C" which has a cast steel plate (according to Steinway's
>cast description in the plate). I haven't had opportunity to drill
locating
>holes in the plate yet, but am curious about it. Maybe someone on the list
>can tell us about this plate.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Bill Shull
>U of Redlands, La Sierra U
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:05:56 -0600 (CST)
>From: Ron Nossaman <nossaman@southwind.net>
>Subject: Re: S & S capo/Case hardening
>
>I haven't done any experiments on case hardening capos, so I really can't
>speak directly to the pros or cons. I can throw in some peripheral
>observations however, on what I have seen, heard, and done.
>
>Half hard brass has a compression strength limit of about 50k PSI. The cast
>iron average is around 100k PSI, with hardened iron going up to 200k, or
>twice to four times that of brass. At the tenor/treble scale section break,
>the string termination system changes from a softer brass agraffe to a much
>harder cast iron capo. That's also where the whistles, zings, buzzes and
>shrieks start - in the capo section. If harder is better, how does this
>equate? If harder is better, there should be fewer noises in the capo
>section than in the agraffes, not more. Shouldn't there? What's different?
>Maybe the higher frequencies really do need harder terminations. It's just
>an unfortunate coincidence that the noises start immediately above the
>agraffe section. That's it, it's just one of those mysterious cosmic things
>that we weren't meant to fathom, right? God's little joke on the designers
>and techs.
>
>It's the front duplex, gang. When you touch the duplex and the noise stops,
>why would the conclusion be that the capo needs to be hardened? This
doesn't
>compute. Increasing the draft angle and shortening the duplex lengths takes
>care of the problem quite dramatically, and it's simple and easy to do in
>the privacy of your own shop. I've done it. It works. It didn't take any
>superhuman attention to the capo shape, or require any high tech induction,
>flame, or transmogrificational case hardening. It's simple, it's (as nearly
>as I can tell) reliable, it's measurable and understandable, and you don't
>have to wear the pointy hat with the stars to get it to work. Occam was
>right, in my opinion.
>
>Ask yourself: why aren't we using high carbon steel agraffes, hardened to
>the point of scratching diamonds? Evidence is that it doesn't seem to be
>necessary. I wonder at the efforts gone to to attempt to make a suspect
>design "feature" work when the simpler method is to eliminate the feature
in
>favor of something that does work. Why is it necessary, at any cost, to
>retain the design feature that is the problem in the first place? If we
have
>the permission, the funding, and the ability to fix it, why not just fix
it?
>
>
>Just wondering.
>
> Ron
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 00:55:36 -0600
>From: "Richard Moody" <remoody@easnet.net>
>Subject: Re: Nomenclature?
>
>I am for using middle C as the reference point. This can be done in the
>traditional manner m C = c' or for clarity in ascii c' = c1 The
>advantages of this are 1. tradition, 2. harpsichord people understand, 3.
>midi people can quickly adapt, 4.organ people should be for it, (they
>invented it). 5.In the discussion of music theory with non piano playing
>persons 6.In the discussion of historical tunings they usually begin on
>middle C (c1) 7. even the Casio keyboard owners can understand!! : )
>
>c' or c1 = middle C
>
>c'' or c2 = C above middle C
>
>c = C below middle C
>
>C = two C's below middle C
>
>CC or C1 = three C's below middle C
>
>a--c1 is a minor third with middle C as the top note. c1--e1 is a major
>third, root is middle C. Is there any question what notes are these? and
>where they are on ANY keyboard? f1--c2
>
>Source--c2 means tune C above middle C to the source.
>c2--c1 means tune middle C to its octave above.
>c1--g means tune G a fifth above middle C to middle C.
>
>In Webster's International Dictionary III under "pitch" you will find this
>system illustrated. I suppose it is in Groves, or it should be.
>
>The piano is too recent to supplant this notation system in my opinion.
>
>Richard Moody
>
>
>
>- ----------
>> From: John Minor <jminor@uiuc.edu>
>> To: caut@ptg.org
>> Subject: Nomenclature?
>> Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 4:38 PM
>>
>> What is the preferred way to name the notes on the piano for discussion
>> sake? Are they to be referred to as they are with the Accutuner? (A0 A#0
>B0
>> C1 C#1......) Or, is the first A named A1? Enquiring minds want to
>know? I
>> guess if all else fails we could use Middle C as the reference point. :
>)
>> How about A1 A#2 B3 C4 C#5....?
>>
>> John Minor
>> University of Illinois
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:49:31 EST
>From: Bdshull@aol.com
>Subject: Re: S & S capo/Case hardening
>
>Ron and list:
>
>Although I do not speak with the same eloquence as Ron, nor the same
knowledge
>of metal hardnesses, I think that the purpose of the front duplex has been
>missed here. We don't get zings from the agraffe section for a simple
reason:
>The agraffe section is designed to exclude them. We get zings from the
duplex
>section for a simple reason: The duplex section was designed to "include"
>them.
>
>Ron, your solutions to the problem (increased angle and shortened segment
of
>the duplex) show that those solutions are effective in getting rid of
zinging,
>but not necessarily an argument against "V" bar hardening. Redesigning may
or
>may not move towards the intent of the designer, but simply restringing
that
>section with a light capo surface preparation of the capo is often as
adequate
>a solution.
>
>The problem is that the capo is designed for an incomplete termination of
the
>string. Until significant loss of power occurs in this section the capo is
>probably in good shape. When loss of power and tonal aberrations are
>percieved from a distance, it may be time to restring and lightly resurface
>the capo. In certain circumstances rehardening the "V" bar may be needed:
>heavy use with many restringings/hammer replacements, or where the plate
>surface was poor to begin with, either from poor manufacturing or from
>exhuberant filing/grinding.
>
>TIG welding is not particularly expensive, nor is it particularly
>transmogrific. It is inconvenient and increases our risk when we cart the
>plate to the welder. But rehardening, when needed, provides an effective
way
>for the rebuilder to maintain the duplex scaling intent of the
manufacturer.
>Other approaches with this same intent have been made, including the
insertion
>of a rod into a groove made into the capo. Rehardening seems to be the
best
>way to keep the duplex as original as possible.
>
>Ron, I am a comparatively recent caut and pianotech list participant, and I
>continue to appreciate your way with words....Even if I might not alway
agree
>- -
>
>Bill Shull
>U of Redlands, La Sierra U
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 10:31:38 -0800
>From: Horace Greeley <hgreeley@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>Subject: Re: S & S capo
>
>Ric,
>
>While I cannot speak for other manufacturers, S&S case hardened their
>capos up until the late 40's, then sporadically, after that. There was
>a brief flirtation with the process again in the 80's.
>
>The problem is one of cost, not quality.
>
>HG
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 14:23:03 CST
>From: musutton@alpha.nlu.edu
>Subject: S & S capo bars, zings, etc.
>
>Yo, Ron N'man!
> Occam's razor says "Don't compound hypotheses" but reality hasn't
>gotten the message, I guess.
> -Yesterday I attended a recital for flute, horn and piano trio. That
>piano was an ultra-zinger, real h-ll to tune. I don't think I'd like to
hear a
>solo recital on it as is, but wow, it was great with flute and horn, those
>zings gave it a definate voice in between the brassy horn and the plain
flute
>sounds. I've heard this trio with a different piano, and they couldn't get
the
>effect the zinger gave them.
> -Duplex zingers are one thing, zingers from bad termination points are
>another. Good rebuilding includes replacing or resurfacing agraffes,
doesn't
>it?
> -I wonder if burnishing the capo would harden the surface enough to
>make a difference.
> -Isn't there a simple way to test some of these ideas? You know,
>stretch a wire over a section of case-hardened capo, drop a big
ball-bearing on
>it, measure something...
> -There may be room for many ideas in this world, but when you get to
>heaven, watch out for the Steinway boys!
> Regards,
> -Ed Sutton-
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:44:22 -0800 (PST)
>From: "S. Brady" <sbrady@u.washington.edu>
>Subject: Ulrich Gerhartz Seminar
>
>Ulrich Gerhartz in Rare U.S. Teaching Appearance
>
>The Seattle Chapter's annual one-day seminar on March 20, 1999 will
>feature a rare US appearance by the head UK concert technician for
>Steinway & Sons, Mr. Ulrich Gerhartz. Ulrich trained originally at the
>Hamburg Steinway factory, and since assuming his current post at Steinway
>Hall, London, he has been lauded consistently by the world's greatest
>pianists for his excellent work. A profile on Ulrich appeared in the
>August, 1998 Journal.
>
>Ulrich's presentation will consist of a full day of actual concert
>preparation on two pianos, a Hamburg Steinway and a New York Steinway.
>Ulrich will explain and demonstrate the differences between these two
>animals, and will involve class members in the actual work of regulating
>and voicing them.
>
>This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to learn first-hand from a master
>piano technician and gifted teacher. Don't miss it!
>The seminar will be held in the Studio Theater of the University of
>Washington's Meany Hall. Park in the underground garage (enter on 15th
>Ave. NE, one block north of 40th street), and ask directions at the gate
>house. The morning session begins at 9:00 a.m., followed by lunch at noon.
>The afternoon session begins at 1:00 and goes till 5:00.
>
>The cost for the day (including lunch) for non-Seattle-Chapter members is
>$50 at the door, or $35 if a reservation is made by March 13. To make a
>reservation, call Jay at Gable Piano, 425-776-1717.
>
>For more information, call Steve Brady at 206-281-8292.
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________
>
>Steve Brady, RPT
>Head Piano Technician,
>University of Washington
>Editor, Piano Technicians Journal
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 17:50:22 -0600 (CST)
>From: Ron Nossaman <nossaman@southwind.net>
>Subject: Re: S & S capo/Case hardening
>
>At 12:49 PM 3/1/99 EST, you wrote:
>>Ron and list:
>>
>>Although I do not speak with the same eloquence as Ron, nor the same
knowledge
>>of metal hardnesses,
>
>* Hi Bill, you got me. I confess that I looked up the info on hardness just
>for this. It seemed like a valid point.
>
>
>
>
>>I think that the purpose of the front duplex has been
>>missed here. We don't get zings from the agraffe section for a simple
reason:
>>The agraffe section is designed to exclude them. We get zings from the
duplex
>>section for a simple reason: The duplex section was designed to "include"
>>them.
>
>* Not missed at all, I said early on that the intent of the front duplex
was
>to make noise. It seems that folks want to pick *which* noise they make.
>
>
>
>>Ron, your solutions to the problem (increased angle and shortened segment
of
>>the duplex) show that those solutions are effective in getting rid of
zinging,
>>but not necessarily an argument against "V" bar hardening. Redesigning
may or
>>may not move towards the intent of the designer, but simply restringing
that
>>section with a light capo surface preparation of the capo is often as
adequate
>>a solution.
>
>* No, it's not necessarily an argument against v bar hardening, but it's a
>much more simple and sure fix than the rather speculative and "iffy"
>hardening process. Which is more predictable, understandable, measurable,
>and reproducable, given a well shaped V bar in both cases? With a hardened
V
>bar, you may very well still get unwanted zings and whistles, whereas with
>the higher draft angle and shorter duplex, you most probably won't. The
>higher success probability of the latter would make it my first choice if I
>was allowed to do it. I'd rather just do it once.
>
>
>
>>The problem is that the capo is designed for an incomplete termination of
the
>>string. Until significant loss of power occurs in this section the capo
is
>>probably in good shape. When loss of power and tonal aberrations are
>>percieved from a distance, it may be time to restring and lightly
resurface
>>the capo. In certain circumstances rehardening the "V" bar may be needed:
>>heavy use with many restringings/hammer replacements, or where the plate
>>surface was poor to begin with, either from poor manufacturing or from
>>exhuberant filing/grinding.
>
>* Perhaps, but I would suspect soundboard problems as being the prime
>suspect in the cause of loss of power in this area of the scale, though V
>bar wear may very well be contributory. The need for hardening being
>determined by what - visible damage to the bearing surface?
>
>
>
>>TIG welding is not particularly expensive, nor is it particularly
>>transmogrific. It is inconvenient and increases our risk when we cart the
>>plate to the welder. But rehardening, when needed, provides an effective
way
>>for the rebuilder to maintain the duplex scaling intent of the
manufacturer.
>>Other approaches with this same intent have been made, including the
insertion
>>of a rod into a groove made into the capo. Rehardening seems to be the
best
>>way to keep the duplex as original as possible.
>
>* Ok, there's the qualifier. If keeping the design as original as possible
>is the imperative, then shape and harden away with my blessing and best
>wishes. I consider it a design flaw in the first place, considering the
>problems the bloody things subject us to, and think it ought to just be
>corrected and get it over with.
>
>
>>Ron, I am a comparatively recent caut and pianotech list participant, and
I
>>continue to appreciate your way with words....Even if I might not alway
agree
>>-
>>
>>Bill Shull
>>U of Redlands, La Sierra U
>
>* I've probably learned more disagreeing with accepted attitudes and
>knowledge than I ever did by acceptance without question. I've changed my
>mind more than once too when someone had a better argument. I do tend to
>charge right in rather than going through social and procedural niceties,
>but I don't mean to attack. A disagreement ain't a war, but a social
>maladroit like myself pushes the wrong buttons sometimes.
>
>Thanks for the reply.
> Ron
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 12:16:06 -0700 (MST)
>From: "Jim Coleman, Sr." <pianotoo@IMAP2.ASU.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Nomenclature?
>
>Hi Richard:
>
>The system has already been supplanted. It was because of all the confusion
>which existed before. One person mentioned that there had been 7 previous
>systems for denoting the octaves. This is why the Acoustical Society of
>America came up with the current system. It is somewhat analogous to the
>establishing of a standard pitch by the same body.
>
>Jim Coleman, Sr.
>
>
>On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, Richard Moody wrote:
>
>> I am for using middle C as the reference point. This can be done in the
>> traditional manner m C = c' or for clarity in ascii c' = c1 The
>> advantages of this are 1. tradition, 2. harpsichord people understand, 3.
>> midi people can quickly adapt, 4.organ people should be for it, (they
>> invented it). 5.In the discussion of music theory with non piano
playing
>> persons 6.In the discussion of historical tunings they usually begin
on
>> middle C (c1) 7. even the Casio keyboard owners can understand!! : )
>>
>> c' or c1 = middle C
>>
>> c'' or c2 = C above middle C
>>
>> c = C below middle C
>>
>> C = two C's below middle C
>>
>> CC or C1 = three C's below middle C
>>
>> a--c1 is a minor third with middle C as the top note. c1--e1 is a major
>> third, root is middle C. Is there any question what notes are these? and
>> where they are on ANY keyboard? f1--c2
>>
>> Source--c2 means tune C above middle C to the source.
>> c2--c1 means tune middle C to its octave above.
>> c1--g means tune G a fifth above middle C to middle C.
>>
>> In Webster's International Dictionary III under "pitch" you will find
this
>> system illustrated. I suppose it is in Groves, or it should be.
>>
>> The piano is too recent to supplant this notation system in my opinion.
>>
>> Richard Moody
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> > From: John Minor <jminor@uiuc.edu>
>> > To: caut@ptg.org
>> > Subject: Nomenclature?
>> > Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 4:38 PM
>> >
>> > What is the preferred way to name the notes on the piano for discussion
>> > sake? Are they to be referred to as they are with the Accutuner? (A0
A#0
>> B0
>> > C1 C#1......) Or, is the first A named A1? Enquiring minds want to
>> know? I
>> > guess if all else fails we could use Middle C as the reference point. :
>> )
>> > How about A1 A#2 B3 C4 C#5....?
>> >
>> > John Minor
>> > University of Illinois
>> >
>>
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:28:39 -0600 (CST)
>From: Ron Nossaman <nossaman@southwind.net>
>Subject: Re: S & S capo bars, zings, etc.
>
>Yo your own self, you Ed-like person you.
>
>
>>Yo, Ron N'man!
>> Occam's razor says "Don't compound hypotheses" but reality hasn't
>>gotten the message, I guess.
>> -Yesterday I attended a recital for flute, horn and piano trio. That
>>piano was an ultra-zinger, real h-ll to tune. I don't think I'd like to
hear a
>>solo recital on it as is, but wow, it was great with flute and horn, those
>>zings gave it a definate voice in between the brassy horn and the plain
flute
>>sounds. I've heard this trio with a different piano, and they couldn't
get the
>>effect the zinger gave them.
>
>* Uh oh, this is starting to look like a budding career in advertising.
>
>
>
>> -Duplex zingers are one thing, zingers from bad termination points are
>>another. Good rebuilding includes replacing or resurfacing agraffes,
doesn't
>>it?
>
>* Yep, but I understood the contention to be that hardening the V bar would
>help the duplex zingers. Was that not right?
>
>
>
>> -I wonder if burnishing the capo would harden the surface enough to
>>make a difference.
>
>* I don't know. Cast iron is crystalline and not terribly malleable. Does
it
>work harden? I haven't a clue, it never came up before, but I would guess
not.
>
>
>> -Isn't there a simple way to test some of these ideas? You know,
>>stretch a wire over a section of case-hardened capo, drop a big
ball-bearing on
>>it, measure something...
>
>* Sure. Mark Bolsius reported in a post that Ron Overs had added a small
>pressure bar to shorten a noisy front duplex and it worked great. The last
>two grands I strung got the "tuned" front duplex replaced with
appropriately
>sized and positioned brass half-round bars to get a 20 degree +
>(thereabouts) draft angle and the shortest practical duplex length and it
>seems to have worked just fine. I'll know more about this last one when I
>get the dampers on and the action done. There's not a scrap of felt
anywhere
>on the plate at this point and I'm curious to see if anything makes
unwanted
>noises when it's all together. I'll let you know what comes of it.
>
>
>> -There may be room for many ideas in this world, but when you get to
>>heaven, watch out for the Steinway boys!
>> Regards,
>> -Ed Sutton-
>
>Now Ed, you know they couldn't possibly be in heaven, so I'll probably run
>into them somewhere else.
>
> Ron
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of caut-digest V1997 #121
>*****************************
>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC