Steinway "pinning" dilemma

[Jim Busby]

Thanks Ed.

That's 4 votes for repinning. Even if the Backcheck angle, etc. is
correct and the spring is OK not all hammers will check well. Only with
rough checkering do they check properly.  However, the tail radius is
extremely small creating less surface area of the tail to contact the
backcheck. Maybe reshaping the tails will reduce the amount of
checkering needed. But then again, I'm changing their work. 

Who pays for any work? Steinway will say it's correct and not a
warrantee issue and the College won't cough up umpteen more dollars for
new pianos that they just paid over $500,000.00 for.

Catch 22? Maybe you're right and they'll just have to decide on what
they want.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of
A440A@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 1:33 PM
To: caut@ptg.org
Subject: Re: Steinway "pinning" dilemma

Greetings, 
Jim writes: 
<< You can make the action work by making sure rep. spring is not too
strong and by periodically roughing the tails, but conventional wisdom
says we need proper friction in the right places to make an action feel
and work correctly. Right?? Any thoughts on this? << 

     Thoughts on this plod through my mind like donkey carts moving
through 
wet concrete, all the time.  I think you would want to make sure that
the rep 
springs weren't too strong no matter what!  During the summer, the most
stable 
actions are barely lifting the hammer with a controlled motion.  Those
same 
actions are right smart in their resetting during the winter months. The
piano 
will operate at speed both ways. 
Roughing the tails doesn't seem to be necessary when the tails are
radiused 
on 2.5" and the backcheck is about 5-10 degrees or so away from
parallell to 
the hammer core, at rest. ( I think that is about right, I know it when
I see it 
but rarely measure it). 
    I too, believe that a frictionless action would feel twitchy.  I
have 
played pianos with everything worn and loose, and even when they are 
regulated,(as best as possible,given the balancier pinning determines a
lot of the 
spring's tension) and they are less comfortable to play and try to
control.  If you 
want to just lay in there and lean on the piano till the hammers really,
really 
speak,  this is not a problem.  HOwever, if one is trying to carefully
voice 
chords or render melodic lines just slightly on top of backgrounds,  the

appropriate friction is a near essential ingredient in maximum control.
How much 
is appropriate? 
    These figures may be at odds to some others, but they work just fine
for 
me: 
The hammer needs to Jolly well be well pinned!  This is a tonal 
considerations, so it may be that compromises would best be done
elsewhere.  If the hammer 
swings 4 times in summer, I consider it perfect.  As I approach the top
end, I 
don't mind if they swing 3 times, there isn't much weigth to be using as
a 
frictional barometer. 
   The balancier if frictionless will make setting springs difficult,
and 
will also reduce the spring's strength setting.  I like them to have 3-5
grams on 
them. They move so little, and only at the last of the stroke when the
whole 
action train is moving at speed, their contribution to the total
friction is 
minimal.  
    The jack is often pinned too loose, imo, on the belief that it must
move 
so fast.  I have had notes that functioned quite rapidly with a jack
that had 
10 grams of resistance.  A loose jack oscillates out of control as it
releases 
on a hard blow.  Pinning them almost as tightly (5 grams) , as the
hammer 
shanks will not cause a problem and sure adds durability.  If you have
firm 
pinning on your balancier, you will have plenty of spring for jack
return, 
(assuming the butterfly springs).  
   The whippen flange is pretty unimportant, in my experience. I have
found 
notes playing just fine with flanges that are way too loose and way too
tight.  
If the flanges drop with a screw in them, under some control,  I don't
bother 
them.  
 
>>Since they are under warranty I will do as I was taught at Steinway,
but
my gut feeling is to repin the rail, lighten the hammers, etc. to
achieve proper touchweight, and spend the next ten years working on
pianos that feel "right" to me.<<  

   I was also caught in this bind.  I don't think you can achieve
consistancy 
by putting a fluid on the hammer line, since some of them will change
more 
than others.  The factory recommendation to me was originally straight
methanol, 
allowed to sit overnight without touching the keys. I did this and had a
huge 
number of overyloose hammer flanges the next day.  So much for THAT as a
path 
to the even hammer line. 
   The customer wasn't happy, and the tone had suffered.  I repinned
with my 
reamers, clippers, box of centerpins and reading glasses.  The customer
was 
happy and it has been 4 years with no additional problems. 
I think this is a choice between expensive labor or "fast, quick, and
easy" 
treatments.  
 
 2 other techs who are top notch by any standard and
they totally agree with me. However, two Steinway techs say their system
works. How do I justify the two seemingly opposing systems and make the
pianos work to my standards without bucking Steinway?  >>

     Maybe you can't.  Maybe you can hope for is to give them a choice.
Do 
one of them the Steinway way, and then do another your way.  Let the 
instruments speak for themselves.  Make a pitch for uncompromised
excellence.  We can be 
in charge of shaping our clientele, it's not necessarily the other way 
around.  
Regards, 

Ed Foote RPT 
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
 <A
HREF="http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/399/six_degrees_of_tonality.html">
MP3.com: Six Degrees of Tonality</A>
_______________________________________________
caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives