Hi Bill,
Great post, good technique. I use a string level _first_ because it
is so much more efficient. Then I touch up string level and/or hammer
filing in doing the finish work (mating is a combination of fine
string level and hammer surface). I also find that it is more
efficient to do hammer squaring as I described in an earlier post: go
through every hammer on the bench. First space each hammer precisely
between its neighbors in strike position (shank between adjacent
crowns), then lower and space by burning to center crown between crowns.
I have become more and more obsessive about efficient technique.
Nobody is willing to pay what it takes to do a truly fine job if you
are slow about it, at least out here in a state that vies with
Mississippi for lowest in most economic standings. Well, some people
are willing to pay, but they are few and far between.
I used to do all my string leveling to the hammers, starting with a
level filing job, then leveling by mating (pressing hammer to
string). But I can get to a more precise place much faster if I start
by leveling the strings with a string level. Try it, you may like it.
A caveat: it does take practice to gain efficiency at "leveling with
a level." Just like tuning precise unisons, setting precise rep
string strength, or setting a precise hammer line. Or bending grand
damper wires. Minute, controlled movements. It can get very
frustrating if you yank a string too high, then are trying to get the
other two strings to that level. Kind of like seesawing on a tuning
hammer, jerk up, jerk down, never get to the center. Except that with
string leveling, pushing down is only possible within very small
parameters. So a good feel for precise pulling is essential. That
said, I can usually get a pretty fine level on a piano in an hour,
and then have very little touch up unless I am doing extraordinarily
persnickety work. Took me a good two hours when I first tried it with
a level.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu
On Jul 20, 2006, at 10:27 PM, william ballard wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Becker, Lawrence ((beckerlr)) wrote:
>> I have a way that works for me to use your bubble gauge near the
>> struts and where there isn’t room between the dampers and v-
>> bar......(snip)........Trying to hold both pieces in one hand
>> might feel a little fumbly at first, but if I can do it, so can
>> most other folks.
>
> I have a way if string leveling which has nothing to do with a
> bubble guage, a brass block sitting on top of the strings, and
> which confirms the straight line of three strings right at the
> point of hammer contact (not a 1/4-1/2" in front of it, nor at some
> point close to the capo/aggraphe). It also neatly confirms that
> when hammer fitting is correct in the standard position, it will
> also be in the U.C. shift position.
>
> 1.) Hammers get filed early on in the regulation (after travel/burn/
> space). At this points the row of hammer crowns is confirmed to be
> level, by laying a straight-edge on the hammer rail, and sighting
> across the entire line of strike points (not at 11:30 or 12:30, but
> at 12 o'clock). Yes I know, everyone else's hammer filing produces
> nice level tops, but I still check mine.
>
> Later on in the regulation (after all the button turning is done),
> the hammer fitting starts.
>
> 2.) I use the jack to lift the hammer into contact with the string,
> and I listen to the pattern of open/closed in the standard position
> (ie. "phing....pck.....pluug", but hopefully "pck....pck....pck").
> I memorize this.
>
> 3.) With the U.C. on (shift set at 75% of string space), I now
> listen to the open/closed pattern, to see how is has changed.
> Remember that the part of the hammer crown which was hitting the LH
> string is now hitting closer to the center string, the RH string is
> now being hit by the part of the hammer near to what was hitting
> the center string, the RH side of the hammer is hitting nothing,
> and the LH string is not being hit. (These last two are simply out
> of the picture as far as the U.C. open/close pattern goes.)
>
> 4.) Taking the first example ("phing....pck.....pluug"), if the
> U.C. pattern is "phing....pck" (hammer felt on center and RH
> strings respectively--remember, the LH string and right side of the
> hammer are out of the picture), that tells me that it's the hammer
> that's not square. The pattern moved when the hammer moved, right?
>
> 5.) If the U.C. pattern is "pck....pluug", that tells me that it's
> the string that's not level. The pattern stayed when the hammer
> moved, right?
>
> 6.) If the U.C. pattern changes to something entirely different,
> then both or cock-eyed. I go back to square one.
>
> 7.) Taking the second example, "pck....pck....pck": if in the shift
> position the pattern is "pck....pck" that note is fine, I move on
> to the next.
>
> Nothing mucks up the U.C. sound more than open strings in the shift
> position, except of course for reinforcer in the in-between zones
> of the hammer strike point. The U.C. sound is the first thing I
> listen for at a recital on someone else's piano.
>
> I stumbled on this 20 years ago and haven't met anyone else who
> has. However the logic behind this routine is so simple, I can't
> believe it hasn't been a part of some of the best "voicing tool
> bags" over the years.
>
> Kind of like Ludwig Tomescu's trick for finding leaning hammers
> once the traveling and spacing has been done. Use the key to lift
> an individual hammer and, simultaneously compare the space between
> the sides of the hammer and each neighbor. (Works no matter whether
> the hammer sides are straight or tapered.) It never would have
> occurred to me, but the logic is so simple.
>
> Plenty more to say on hammer fitting and string leveling. I've said
> most of it already, but will say it again if anyone's interested.
>
> mrbl
> wbps at vermontel.net
>
> "Can you check out this middle C?. It "whangs' - (or twangs?)
> Thanks so much, Ginger"
> ...........Service Request
> +++++++++++++++++++++
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC