Hi, Al, At 07:54 AM 10/14/2010, you wrote: >I've been reading this tread with interest and at this point, would >like to interject what I was taught while working at Steinway. Yes, please! > >I spent one year at a one time event at the Steinway factory. It was >a special class given by Fred Drasche to train new technicians for >Steinway Hall. After completing the school I was put on the bench >for further training-as-you-produce, working my way through the >ranks as a Fore-finisher, Regulator, Tone Regulator and finally Tone >Regulator and Inspector. Sounds familiar, except that my experiences there were spread out over many years. Fred was truly unique. >I was taught that the reason for the radius in the keybed was to >insure that there was equal pressure across the keybed so there >would be a solid feel when playing, with no possibility of knocking. Yes, absolutely; and this is part of the description in the patent application. Another part of this fairly complex patent talks about this same reverse-radius mating in terms of creating a dynamic lock, such that the energy transmitted through the key-keyframe-keybed-rim/etc becomes part of an acoustic loop which, in addition to supporting the projection of tone into the hall, also gives acoustic feedback to the performer. > Since the keybed had a radius, then the key level should match to > produce equal touch and a near equal number of punchings under the keys. Right - I don't know what you learned during your process, it seems to have varied a bit; and I've always, perhaps erroneously, attributed the variation in number and thickness of the FR paper punchings to have been a function of change in the supply of what was available. During much of the earlier years that I was there, Fred, Joe Bisceglie and Raymond Parada all said "two blues, two greens"...then, in essence, "see what works"...but, definitely, the smallest number of punchings possible, even if it meant back-tracking to replace several thinner ones with something thicker. Like Jurgen's Crescendo punchings, it definitely seems to go to a more positive/controllable feel/stop to the key. >We were also told that Steinway considered it to have a better look >than a flat key level. FWIW. Exactly...although, I've just seen what Del posted...so will add something there rather than more here. Thanks, Al! I do love this list! Best. Horace > >Al - >High Point, NC > > >From: <mailto:bill at a440piano.net>William Monroe >Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:26 AM >To: <mailto:pianotech at ptg.org>pianotech at ptg.org >Subject: Re: [pianotech] key leveling with a curve > >Hi Horace, > >I guess I hadn't expected that after they introduced the CNC machine >for prepping keybeds that it would go unused >periodically. Interesting, though not surprising. I crown the key >level as I see no down side to the process, it's no more difficult >than a flat keyboard, and I like the aesthetic. > >The rest of your email regarding S&S NY I find spot on. > >Kindest Regards, >William R. Monroe > > > > > >On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Horace Greeley ><<mailto:hgreeley at sonic.net>hgreeley at sonic.net> wrote: > >Hi, William, > >At 06:00 AM 10/13/2010, you wrote: >>Hi Paul, >> >>I would respectfully disagree. When at the factory three years ago >>(and this spring) we looked at the CNC machine that does the >>cutting to radius the key bed. It was still done then, and I've >>heard nothing to the contrary in the past three years. FYI. > >Yes. The problem is that, as I think I've noted elsewhere, this is >simply one more instance in which S&S is consistently predictable in >their inconsistency. That is, from a certain point of view, using >CNC devices to do the rough cutting of keybeds at some point in >their manufacturing process is one thing. It's quite another to >change manufacturing processes (e.g., not necessarily _design >standards_) in ways which materially affect as-built >standards. Those kinds of changes are notable if one looks at >enough instruments over a long enough period of time...especially >when one has to re-engineer whatever has happened on the line in >order to figure out what may/may not be going on with a specific >piano. By that, I mean that, from a certain point of view, it >really doesn't matter how the cabinet work is done if the end result >is consistent inconsistency with regard to the product - and, >there's been plenty of that over a very long time in the specific >are of forefinishing. > >And, yes, I've seen the CNC machines in operation in Astoria; and >I've also seen them sitting quiet, obviously not in use. It's >really had a great deal to do with who has been in charge of >manufacturing at any given time over the years. Further, let's >please not forget that an issue of increasing seriousness to many >manufacturers, especially ones in the piano business over the last >60 years or so, is the paucity of real cabinet makers coming through >the doors seeking employment. > >Putting aside much of the above, though, because it really >obfuscates what we're talking about, the issue with the keybed and >how that affects key leveling has to do with the whole forefinishing >process. And, as critical as that area is to Steinway, they are >still having real problems with getting much consistency with the >whole process. Beds and keyframes come through all over the >place...often being planar where they should be concave, concave >where they should be convex...etc. In that context, I fully concur >with Ron (and others) that building a crown into the key height, >however rewarding it may be from a standpoint of ego or technical >competency is simply not noticed with sufficient frequency. Does >that mean I don't do it? Of course not. It just means I'm quite >realistic about why I'm doing it and for whom. > >Best regards. > >Horace > > > >>William R. Monroe > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20101014/6e2fe4a3/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC