At 7:27 AM -0400 9/15/05, Phil Bondi wrote:
>Don't forget: this device is a tool, and the final test for level
>strings should be no sound coming from a matted hammer-to-strings.
>I said arguably!,
I don't argue. What were talking about is a step preparing the piano
for voicing, not for use as a surveyor's transit.
At 7:16 AM -0500 9/15/05, Andrew and Rebeca Anderson wrote:
>Wouldn't it make sense to simply level at the strike-point and then
>fit the hammer?
Such an approach could conceivably produce a stair-stepped string
plane earlier mentioned if the plate is either warped, or set inside
the rim deliberately out of level. But just how fatal is this? Who
among us could detect, just by listening to the piano, that the
string plane was climbing by a mil or two, from one note to the next?
Such a person could probably also detect a jump in string height of
20 mils across an action break. I'm interested in meeting such a
person.
>I guess if you shift the action and then have a phase problem, you
>piano is really out of level.
No, shifting the action won't change string leveling which agrees
with hammer strike surfaces. It does however tell you that one or
both of these has not been done to the accuracy which is needed. Next
time you hear two strings on a note, both of which are making contact
with the hammer, but one of whose "pluck" sound is noticeably shorter
than the other, measure the relative elevation of the two string with
a dial indicator, at the strike point. 5 mils, maybe. This is the
accuracy we're asking of our chosen means.
I don't know about a phase problem. What I'm talking about is hammer
fitting which checks out in the standard position, but which doesn't
when shifted. No big mystery here, just error that manages to escape
the procedure.
Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.
".......true more in general than specifically"
...........Lenny Bruce, spoofing a radio discussion of the Hebrew
roots of Calypso music
+++++++++++++++++++++
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC