At 6:52 pm -0700 25/7/07, David Love wrote: >So youÕve obviously found some consistency in this requirement. I >guess it makes sense since I would presume itÕs related to the plate >design or casting. Looking back, though, IÕm not sure IÕve seen the >need in every example. Maybe itÕs time to go back and visit those >pianosÉmaybe later. In theory the strike point will be at a certain fraction of the speaking length, say 1/8 in the area under discussion, and since the strike line is the first line drawn in designing a piano, it would be very odd to think it was not drawn straight in the horizontal plane. When you, or Dale, have set up the piano with the curve in the line to get the best tonal result, do you find that the hammer is striking the string at different proportions of the speaking length? Supposing that the strike line is straight, it would take a very large error in the casting to require a difference of 4 mm in the positioning of the hammer-head on the shank. Am I right in assuming that Steinway's original set-up has the hammer-line straight? If so, is there a curve in the string height or the hammer bore such that the strike point is on the strike line? I have practically no experience with the 'B' and am fascinated to know why it is that a curve in the hammer gluing should produce the best sound to your ears, which I do not doubt. JD
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC