You really need to survey the action a bit more accurately to get the proper feedback. If the balance weight is 45 (60 down 30 up) then you will need to take 1 gram off the hammers to bring it down to a manageable 40 grams (still slightly heavy). But that's not realistic in the upper half of the piano. One gram off the lower end is doable but not at the high end. If it's 42 grams (56 down 28 up) then depending on the lead pattern and placement you might be able to use a combination of adding one lead and taking off somewhat less weight off the hammers. Only by taking down and up weight measurements on each key will you know exactly whether you have a friction problem or not. Also, unless we know how much lead is in the piano then we can't comment on whether adding lead is an option. The number of leads is not always an indication especially if they are placed near the balance rail where the overall front weight will be less than if they are placed toward the front of the key. The front weight on those keys that you take sample UW and DW of would be very helpful if you know how to take that measurement. Otherwise suggestions are being made with insufficient information. That being said, pianos of that vintage are somewhat notorious for having key ratios (capstan placements) that contribute to an overall high action ratio and often capstan movement is necessary or recommended. That may be beyond what you want to take on but, again, without more information it's difficult to make meaningful recommendations. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com I installed pre-hung S&S hammers on the '70 S&S D, forced to use original repetitions because of budget considerations. With the regulation only "roughed in," the down weight feels too high to me when I play it. Now I find it's measuring in the range of 55-60 grams throughout. I have addressed friction in every area except removing and cleaning repetitions. I can't believe rep spring grooves, etc., would make that much of a difference; they don't seem that bad. The new hammers are hung on NY improved shanks with knuckle further out. I compared hammer/shank/flange #44 from the original and new sets, and there is, if I remember correctly, about a 2 gram difference. But the originals are so beat, I don't know if it's a very meaningful comparison. Would mixing original 1970 reps with NYI H/S/F cause the geometry to be that different? I was told by David Kirkland that I could "make it work," although using older repetitions wasn't first choice. I know the hammer weight changed in 1984, but understood that using NYI shanks and flanges would be all the compensation that was needed for the additional weight. By the way, the upweight measures roughly 28-30g. Also a little high, no? And it seems to me there's a lot of lead in the keys, but I'm definitely no expert. Doesn't this imply a somewhat too-heavy hammer? I don't mean to be taking any shortcuts here, but there are time constraints and a balance/compromise that must be struck with all the other instruments I'm responsible for. This one is starting to drown me. Just wondering if this touchweight issue is common when putting new hammers on a Steinway D from this period, and if there is a typical or common remedy or approach to solving the problem. This is only my 3rd set of hammers, and my first set completely on my own. I'm thinking of attending the PTG hammer hanging class with Mike Carraher and Keith Bowman in October. Any thoughts on whether I'll learn skills in addition to hanging (determining bore angle, etc. and boring hammers, I assume?) that might help me fix this? Will they address how to arrive at final touch weight? I want to learn! Guess I should contact Mike or Keith. OK, now I've exposed my near-total ignorance in this area and am embarrassed. Thanks in advance for any suggestions. -- Paul Milesi, RPT Staff Piano Technician Howard University Department of Music Washington, DC
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC