Steinway "pinning" dilemma

[Alan McCoy]

Hi Jim, et al,

Great thread here. Though the dilemma remains. Does Eric say anything
specific regarding the "new" action other than teflon-impregnated bushings
(which is not new at all)? Like have there been any changes to geometry? Are
they still installing the capstan after locating the stack (i.e. in reverse
order)? Still insisting that the action spread is always 4.406" when in fact
it varies all over the place?

Part of the difficulty with Steinway, which I think is a reason for Steinway
bashing, is the percieved arrogance of the organization. Whether this is
real is not as important as the perception, and the company has done
precious little to cultivate the technicians in the field. Way too much
defensiveness and denial as a part of the Steinway culture when dealing with
production problems and with technicians in the field. This in stark
contrast to the way Kawai, Yamaha, Young Chang and others deal with
technicians. Has something to do with respect, yes? This coming from someone
who has attended a couple of their weeklong seminars and who really likes
their piano. I work on them and own one. I like em. But they do have
problems. I worked with a dealer here for years prepping these pianos. I was
in close contact with the factory about numerous problems. Very uneven
record in my book as to effectively dealing with production problems. The
thing is that many techs really like these pianos, but don't really enjoy
dealing with the company.

OK. That's off my chest.

Pinning. Lot's of good advice given. Still hard to make a decision. I don't
like "frictionless" actions for reasons of control and tone. I'd bet this is
a production decision - free actions don't result in as many complaints as
sluggish actions do - not a musical decision. But the fact that it has been
weighed off that way is really the problem. Reminds me of the era when there
were many actions weighed off that had overly tight balance rails. You
correct one problem, only to create another. What a mess. I'll be interested
to hear what you end up deciding to do.

Crown. When I deal with Steinway and like hammers, I treat them like Ron
Conors. Works for me, and is a very reliable and stable treatment. I know it
really turns the traditional theory on its head, but I like it. I don't,
however, buy the idea that it works on other types of hammers.

Bobbling. Great responses from a variety of sources. If I were to bet I'd
bet on tail arc and backcheck height as the culprits. Steinway are you
listening? There are some experienced people here with something to say.
Checking is one of those Steinway problems that won't go away. Try arcing
your tails at 2.5 or 3". With the proper arc, check height, and tail length
(at least 1 1/16"), checking will rarely be a problem.

Thanks for all the great ideas. I keep learning.

Alan
____________________________________________
Alan McCoy, RPT
Eastern Washington University
509-359-4627
amccoy@mail.ewu.edu


> -----Original Message-----
> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org]On Behalf Of
> Fred Sturm
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:37 AM
> To: College and University Technicians
> Subject: RE: Steinway "pinning" dilemma
>
>
> Hi Jim,
> 	I share your bafflement. I have heard the same things from various
> Steinway techs - "as long as it's firm, friction doesn't matter." I agree
> with Jeff, Ed, Horace and others. In my experience, friction does matter,
> and I want 4 to 8 grams in my shank centers (paying attention to ambiant
> humidity at the time). I do a lot of top action repinning as a matter of
> standard up-keep. Typically every year or two for a performance
> instrument.
> I find this makes a big difference to sound production, responsiveness,
> control, nuance, function (helps a lot in the checking versus rep spring
> strength balancing act). So I am puzzled when I hear the opposite
> view from
> techs I respect.
> 	My sense is this is possibly a matter of tail wagging dog.
> When teflon was
> abandoned, instead of going back to regular old felt, Steinway
> went to this
> felt impregnated with Emralon, Permalon, or whatever it is
> exactly. I have
> the feeling this was partly a production driven innovation (aimed at more
> consistency with less labor), with the idea that it would also lead to
> improvement in function. With this impregnation, the felt can be more
> variable in density and fit, and the "plastic substance" makes
> the bushing
> longer lasting and less liable to humidity fluctuation. It is
> also readily
> soluble, so you just dose with methanol to free or (at least sometimes)
> firm up the center. And there is the shock absorbing attribute of felt as
> an improvement over the teflon.
> 	All sounds great in theory. But in practice it becomes difficult to
> impossible to come up with free movement plus standard parameters of
> friction under production conditions. Regular felt bushings are fit to
> standards by controlling density and thickness of the felt used, and then
> by applying an appropriate shrinking formula after pinning. Shrinking
> formulas don't work with felt impregnated with "plastic substance." The
> felt is no longer controllable, except by reaming, which is too
> labor-intensive for factory application. So they have to make
> sure the felt
> is thin (or lacking density) enough to be free, and fill in the gaps with
> the plastic. Meaning there is no possibility for achieving what
> most of us
> agree is optimum friction parameters. Though they _can_ achieve good
> firmness with low friction consistently.
> 	Result being that, decisions having been made and
> production facilities
> long since adapted, they try to make the best of it. At least
> that's how I
> read it.
> 	I'd be very interested to hear what Eric has to say. As it
> happens, I'm
> heading to NYC for a week long seminar the end of October, and this whole
> question was high on my list of things to query. Eric says he won't be
> there (he'll be on the competition circuit somewhere), so I'll
> ask Kent and
> whoever else is available and see what they have to say. This question is
> similar to the whole hammer treatment issue (especially Ron Coners saying
> the only part of the hammer that matters is the crown, and
> limiting what is
> done to 3:1 lacquer and single needles deep into the crown, along with
> occasional application of keytop). I hear what they are saying, and
> hesitate to reject it outright, but I just can't seem to digest
> it. Doesn't
> compute. Doesn't fit with my experience. On the other hand, the C & A
> department in NYC is dealing with, and satisfying, the cream of the cream
> pianists, day after day, year after year. Who am I to argue? It's a
> quandary.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
>
> --On Saturday, September 27, 2003 7:43 PM -0600 Jim Busby
> <jim_busby@byu.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > David,
> >
> >
> >
> > You may be right about the capstans and knuckles, but once
> again it means
> > changing a new instrument x 8. Eric Schandall is coming out
> next week and
> > I'll push him hard on this. Let's see what he says. I was told by "a
> > competitor" that concert artists will never like them as is, but if this
> > is what Steinway C & A is doing I can't really buy that either.
> >
> >
> >
> > As far as side play goes they really do seem tight. (no excess sideplay)
> > But the things swing all day long! If this indeed works, then
> all the PTG
> > literature, articles, etc. about friction are in question. Or
> maybe there
> > really are two types of pianos; S & S, and everyone else.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim Busby
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives