[CAUT] bechstein

[Joe And Penny Goss]

Close answer but be slightly more precise.
Joe Goss RPT
Mother Goose Tools
imatunr at srvinet.com
www.mothergoosetools.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan McCoy" <amccoy at mail.ewu.edu>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] bechstein


> David,
>
> Be sure early on to take care of the obvious friction
> problems/inconsistencies that you have.
>
> Also note #40 presents some issues (a BW of 48!). I'd bet that the leading
> pattern changes on this note. Smoothing the FW will help out these
> inconsistencies.
>
> Alan
>
>
> -- Alan McCoy, RPT
> Eastern Washington University
> amccoy at mail.ewu.edu
> 509-359-4627
>
>
> > From: David Ilvedson <ilvey at sbcglobal.net>
> > Reply-To: <ilvey at sbcglobal.net>, "College and University Technicians
> > <caut at ptg.org>" <caut at ptg.org>
> > Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:28:10 -0700
> > To: <caut at ptg.org>
> > Subject: Re: [CAUT] bechstein
> >
> > The action regulates well...I was wondering about the action
spread...113 mm,
> > but that seems OK?   The slotted wippen rail has a washer impression
quite a
> > bit closer towards the balance rail...
> > The capstans seem to be in line with the balance rail.   I will be
installing
> > new shanks and flanges, probably Renner but I'm considering Abel, so the
> > knuckle alignment should be good...
> > I haven't looked closely at the magic line with a thread, but just eying
it,
> > it seems OK...
> > I"m leaning towards the Abel Standard...the Abel Select really seemed to
> > heavy...stock sample #29 was 10.5 grams...no shank...1/2 high.   I
wonder if
> > that 10.5 could be brought down 2 grams?   I'm thinking adding a pit of
weight
> > to the Standards makes more sense than removing from Select.   Any
comments on
> > the difference between these hammers?   Both seem to be a beautiful
consistent
> > hammer...
> >
> > John Delacourts comments about Abel making Bechstein hammers makes me
think
> > they might be a good match for this piano...I did try the a few in the
piano
> > and like the sound...
> >
> > David Ilvedson, RPT
> > Pacifica, CA  94044
> >
> >
> > ----- Original message ----------------------------------------
> > From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>
> > To: "Pianotech List" <pianotech at ptg.org>, "College and University
Technicians"
> > <caut at ptg.org>
> > Received: 8/6/2006 9:34:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [CAUT] bechstein
> >
> >
> >> With the exception of note 16 (not sure what's going on there), I don't
see
> >> any real problem here.  Even if you were you to reweigh down to 37 or
38
> >> grams, you are comfortably under FW maximums (as outlined by Stanwood
> >> charts).  You do have some room to add weight especially if you wanted
to
> >> push up the balance weight a little.  An R of 5.6 or 5.7 is a
reasonable
> >> target, in my view, for good regulation specs--check and see though.
If you
> >> smooth out the strike weights in the basic range that your hammers seem
to
> >> be falling and set up the front weights accordingly aiming for a
uniform
> >> balance weight, you should be fine.  I would double check the
measurements
> >> on #16.  My guess is that there is some measurement error.  Trying to
get
> >> perfectly uniform R numbers is generally not possible depending on
things
> >> like uniform knuckle hanging, straight capstan line and capstan line
> >> parallel to the balance rail line (which it appears you may not have),
not
> >> to mention elimination of measurement error (always a factor).
> >
> >> If the current hammers produce a tone that you like with the current
weight,
> >> why would you change hammers?  If you want to experiment with weight,
you
> >> can always use the binder clip method--removeable too!
> >
> >> David Love
> >> davidlovepianos at comcast.net
> >> www.davidlovepianos.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>