This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Step back in time....... From: Horace Greeley <hgreeley@stanford.edu> Date: August 31, 2004 10:20:40 PM CDT To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org> Subject: Re: Big hammers Barb - I would be more concerned about overall action geometry that = the size of the hammers at this point. Those knuckles look a bit close = to the flange pin.=20 They are close. At first I thought I measured 16 mm, but then I got out = my caliper (after my trip to the store to buy a new battery for it, of = course)--they're 15.5 mm. I was told this rebuilding is about 10 years = old. The piano is from 1975. Also, looking at the backchecks, this is a pre-'87 instrument (for = _me_, this is a GOOD THING!...largely because of the significantly = larger range of regulation possible...long subject and I am not looking = to start a discussion)...being of that vintage, you are also going to = want to check not only action spread, but also deck height from the = keybed to the CP of each of the whippen and hammer flanges. =20 OK, I can do that, but does it make any difference that these are 10 = year old (or so) Renner parts that aren't working so well at the moment? = Action spread is 4.50". I just have the stack home with me now. Is = there a "best way" to measure from the keybed to the CP of the whippen = and hammer flanges? Try to carefully assess what was actually done at the factory, and = what has been done since then...looking especially to see if there has = been a change in the material under the back rail cloth. Usually, this = would have had a layer of red key felt, often on top of one or = (sometimes, but not often) two layers of what amounts to manila card = stock (this latter usually dark brown in color). =20 The back rail felt is original. Also, check to see when/if anyone has replaced the balance rail = pivots; and/or the front rail (felt) punchings. etc. I believe that balance rail pivots are original, but could you describe = what the originals looked like? I doubt the front rail punchings are = original. > In other words, before doing _anything_ try to get a very solid idea = of what it is you are looking at. Then, work=20 > backwards. As someone (Andre? Isaac? sorry) noted, sometimes (even = often) "just" a good, solid regulation will=20 > do more for tone and projection than even many technicians will = believe. Currently, on note 1 the Down weight was 64 and Up weight, 33. Using = the Standwood measurements the balance weight is way too high (48.5) and = so is the Strike Balance ratio (6.36). (I don't plan on using spring = assisted whippens--the jury is still out on those with me--I've gotten = too many mixed reviews). When I put on a New York Style 17 mm shank and = did a quick regulation the DW dropped to 56 and UW to 28 (still using = the Renner whip--which measures out to match the drawing of the Hamburg = style whip in the Steinway manual--from 1992) and the other numbers = (Balance weight and Strike balance ratio) got a lot closer to what I've = read is acceptable (and it certainly felt a lot better!). I'll test a = few more notes on Friday to make sure that regulation is really possible = and to make sure my initial results weren't just wishful thinking. Are = there any problems combining Renner whips with Steinway style shanks? = Purists or distributors need not reply. Just trying to keep this a = low-budget fix-up--but I'll do what is necessary, of course. > So, after all that, those look like S&S hammers; and, from what little = can be seen of them, they look as if they are=20 > fairly well molded and shaped...so, look elsewhere before simply = throwing them out and starting elsewhere. The hammers are going to work. When I first heard them, they sounded = just about as nasty and glassy as you could imagine, but now they have = that nice broad, gutsy tone--producing a nice variety of tone color as = they progress from soft to hard blows. The strike weights run from 12.5 = - 6.5. A friend tells me that's a little heavy, but I'm inclined to = leave them they way they are--for now, anyway. I'm looking forward to what everyone has to say. Barbara Richmond PS At 12:23 PM 8/31/04, Ric wrote: > Jimminees Chrasmus.... look at those knuckle cores... that HAD to be = done willfully... ..=20 > or maybe its just the picture is a bit distorted... > RicB The picture is inaccurate. The knuckle is crooked but not bent. Does = that make sense? ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/be/10/50/c9/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC