Hello, David I may be using the wrong term when I say "inertia." What I mean is that when the hammers bounce way too easily, the checking will be poor. When they're this free, as the hammers return to rest you can see them shuddering up and down several times. When pinned more firmly, they still bounce some as they return to rest position, but not in such a frenetic manner. Not so jittery. Perhaps they hang around long enough for the backcheck to grab them better with firmer pinning. Also the tone seems better. I know that extreme freeness in hammer flanges is the fashion these days, but especially in heavily used pianos, which soon become looser yet, I think that we would be better served to pin them to 3 or 4 swings max, and keep after them as they get up to 6 or more. It's true that this adds a small amount of downweight, but it isn't that much, and the feeling of controllability more than pays for it, IMHO. I think that one possible explanation for the present tendency toward frictionless pinning is that Steinway sends pianos to many climates. If they leave the factory with moderate friction and end up in a damp climate, they will get sluggish. Or if they go to a climate which has severe humidity changes at different times of year, more free pinning might seem wiser than firmer. Luckily Oregon isn't such a place, so I dare set them where I want them, knowing that they won't start seizing the following June. By all means give me your two possible explanations. All I've got are my own observations. I think about the hammer staying around longer, but it's just my own idea. Best, Susan At 06:56 AM 12/18/2006, you wrote: >Susan - >I don't question your observations, or Ric's either. I'm just >looking for an explanation. First, I don't understand when you say >that, due to the lack of friction, the hammer will have less >inertia. I can think of two possible explanations to support this >contention, but I'd be curious to know your idea first. > >Also, am I correct in understanding that "frictionless" hammershank >pinning has been Steinway's approach for sometime now? > >I anxiously await your reply!! > >David Skolnik > > >At 06:04 AM 12/18/2006, you wrote: >>At 10:58 PM 12/17/2006, you wrote: >>>Susan - >>>can you explain how loose pinning would create such a condition? >>> >>>David Skolnik >> >>Sure - if the hammer flange friction is too small, the hammer >>has too little inertia when it touches the backcheck - it's >>too bouncy and can escape from the check. I was fighting this >>failure to check in a D which had heavy use (in a roaring hurry - >>I saw it for the first time a couple of days before an event). >>I reshaped the tails, altered the backcheck angle, slightly >>roughened the tails of some of the more obstinate hammers, >>and left the springs just a tad weaker than I at first >>wanted them to be - and still a few hammers wouldn't check. >> >>So I gave them the swing test, and got about 15! Repinned to >>3 (which became four or five within a few days), and the piano >>became controllable and the notes would go into check. I wanted >>to repin all the hammers, but had no time before the guest >>lecturer was to use it - did them all the next year. The piano >>had a much less worn out feeling while playing - less flyaway. >> >>Susan >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC