Thanks Ed. That's 4 votes for repinning. Even if the Backcheck angle, etc. is correct and the spring is OK not all hammers will check well. Only with rough checkering do they check properly. However, the tail radius is extremely small creating less surface area of the tail to contact the backcheck. Maybe reshaping the tails will reduce the amount of checkering needed. But then again, I'm changing their work. Who pays for any work? Steinway will say it's correct and not a warrantee issue and the College won't cough up umpteen more dollars for new pianos that they just paid over $500,000.00 for. Catch 22? Maybe you're right and they'll just have to decide on what they want. Jim -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of A440A@aol.com Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 1:33 PM To: caut@ptg.org Subject: Re: Steinway "pinning" dilemma Greetings, Jim writes: << You can make the action work by making sure rep. spring is not too strong and by periodically roughing the tails, but conventional wisdom says we need proper friction in the right places to make an action feel and work correctly. Right?? Any thoughts on this? << Thoughts on this plod through my mind like donkey carts moving through wet concrete, all the time. I think you would want to make sure that the rep springs weren't too strong no matter what! During the summer, the most stable actions are barely lifting the hammer with a controlled motion. Those same actions are right smart in their resetting during the winter months. The piano will operate at speed both ways. Roughing the tails doesn't seem to be necessary when the tails are radiused on 2.5" and the backcheck is about 5-10 degrees or so away from parallell to the hammer core, at rest. ( I think that is about right, I know it when I see it but rarely measure it). I too, believe that a frictionless action would feel twitchy. I have played pianos with everything worn and loose, and even when they are regulated,(as best as possible,given the balancier pinning determines a lot of the spring's tension) and they are less comfortable to play and try to control. If you want to just lay in there and lean on the piano till the hammers really, really speak, this is not a problem. HOwever, if one is trying to carefully voice chords or render melodic lines just slightly on top of backgrounds, the appropriate friction is a near essential ingredient in maximum control. How much is appropriate? These figures may be at odds to some others, but they work just fine for me: The hammer needs to Jolly well be well pinned! This is a tonal considerations, so it may be that compromises would best be done elsewhere. If the hammer swings 4 times in summer, I consider it perfect. As I approach the top end, I don't mind if they swing 3 times, there isn't much weigth to be using as a frictional barometer. The balancier if frictionless will make setting springs difficult, and will also reduce the spring's strength setting. I like them to have 3-5 grams on them. They move so little, and only at the last of the stroke when the whole action train is moving at speed, their contribution to the total friction is minimal. The jack is often pinned too loose, imo, on the belief that it must move so fast. I have had notes that functioned quite rapidly with a jack that had 10 grams of resistance. A loose jack oscillates out of control as it releases on a hard blow. Pinning them almost as tightly (5 grams) , as the hammer shanks will not cause a problem and sure adds durability. If you have firm pinning on your balancier, you will have plenty of spring for jack return, (assuming the butterfly springs). The whippen flange is pretty unimportant, in my experience. I have found notes playing just fine with flanges that are way too loose and way too tight. If the flanges drop with a screw in them, under some control, I don't bother them. >>Since they are under warranty I will do as I was taught at Steinway, but my gut feeling is to repin the rail, lighten the hammers, etc. to achieve proper touchweight, and spend the next ten years working on pianos that feel "right" to me.<< I was also caught in this bind. I don't think you can achieve consistancy by putting a fluid on the hammer line, since some of them will change more than others. The factory recommendation to me was originally straight methanol, allowed to sit overnight without touching the keys. I did this and had a huge number of overyloose hammer flanges the next day. So much for THAT as a path to the even hammer line. The customer wasn't happy, and the tone had suffered. I repinned with my reamers, clippers, box of centerpins and reading glasses. The customer was happy and it has been 4 years with no additional problems. I think this is a choice between expensive labor or "fast, quick, and easy" treatments. 2 other techs who are top notch by any standard and they totally agree with me. However, two Steinway techs say their system works. How do I justify the two seemingly opposing systems and make the pianos work to my standards without bucking Steinway? >> Maybe you can't. Maybe you can hope for is to give them a choice. Do one of them the Steinway way, and then do another your way. Let the instruments speak for themselves. Make a pitch for uncompromised excellence. We can be in charge of shaping our clientele, it's not necessarily the other way around. Regards, Ed Foote RPT www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/ www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html <A HREF="http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/399/six_degrees_of_tonality.html"> MP3.com: Six Degrees of Tonality</A> _______________________________________________ caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC