This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Re: Mason & Hamlin uprightI guess I'll again will give the impression of a very frustrated guy, but : a : these spring add a springy feel at the end of the stroke, so the pianist tend to play a tad stronger to override that sensation, then he produce less dynamic range. b : they eventually are getting you in trouble against checking and hammer coming back at rest c : then its easy, you regulate the rail so the springs don't act anymore but then : d : the added mass they provide on the jack is slowing the jack - for the kind , U shaped I refer to. d : the only remaining solution is to get them out. I am unsure as I did not seem much of them recently on Seiler, Saunter, Pleyel, but a locas piano shop in Paris is providing them and have a patent on a U shaped spring they install as an option with a dab of glue on the vertical part of the jacks, and this model I see regularly and find it is useless anyway. I am unsure that I have seen others that where installed on a rail and pushing on a felt located on the jack, but, even if the sensation look pleasing at first, after farther analysis one realize that there are too many drawbacks to the slight faster jacks return they provide - mostly the touch change the dynamic properties of the instrument too much. Well another take by Isaac OLEG (TM) -----Message d'origine----- De : pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]De la part de Keith Roberts Envoyé : dimanche 7 mars 2004 19:37 À : Pianotech Objet : Re: Mason & Hamlin upright I'll be working on it again towards the end of the week. I can take pictures and will see if I can't get them posted soon thereafter. Basically it looks like a miniature of the flat steel spring used on the pedal trapwork. An eyeglass size screw and pin fastens it to about the middle of the jack. There is a 1/4 inch thick piece of felt glued on the back of the catcher covering the hole the bridle strap comes through. As the jack trips out at let off, the spring pushes against that felt on the catcher and forces the hammer back towards the strings. There is a slight backwards wink of the hammer before the hammer goes forward. It is my feeling that the amount of wink should be the same and it should be sufficient enough to achieve a proper checking distance. In this case I think the checking distance should be 1/2 inch because the spring adds to the acceleration on repetitive blows but any less distance weakens the force of the blow too much. As I write this I'm getting the feeling I want to mess with the thickness of the felt instead of the spring or I'll end up with one of those actions with all those pieces removed. (broken). Is it worth it? When this action is working at it's optimum, it probably performs quite well. If I am not going to bring it back to spec I can see a possibility that hammers could block as regulation goes out. Does anybody know any different from what I'm assuming here? Checking distance, etc. Keith Roberts ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith McGavern To: Pianotech Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 7:58 AM Subject: Re: Mason & Hamlin upright At 11:08 PM -0800 3/6/04, Keith Roberts wrote: I'm working on one of those M&H uprights with those flat brass springs between the jack and the hammer butt catcher. Is there an adjustment for those? ... Keith, Any chance you could get a pic of that device? I don't recall ever seeing that arrangement. Keith -- Keith McGavern Texas State Association Registered Piano Technician SOONER SPRING SEMINAR Oklahoma Chapter 731 March 11-14, 2004 Piano Technicians Guild http://www.ptg.org/tsa/ USA ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/75/eb/d8/18/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC