[CAUT] "phing....pck.....pluug"

[william ballard]

Hi Fred,

On Jul 23, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Fred Sturm wrote:
> It really just boils down to "how do I get from here to there in the
> most efficient manner?"

This thread has been very illuminating for me, and not just from the  
standpoint of the "most efficient manner". A straight edge gets in  
installed at either the hammer tops or the string plane, and the  
other is checked against that standard. Another example of "getting  
from here to there" is arriving at a gorgeous sounding piano starting  
from either a set of hard Renner hammers or soft NY Steinway hammers  
(although such characterizations are less true in that last five years).

> which recurs anywhere during the voicing
> procedure that it is needed. Since needling and touch up filing are  
> going to
> mess with whatever precision I have attained previously, the mating  
> process
> is constantly revisited, and refinement often involves both string  
> pulling
> and pushing and a bit of hammer filing.

Agreed, that's the fine stage of the work where you keep running the  
iterations until the errors disappear.

> The only point I was trying to make
> was that I find an initial pass with a string level gets me to a great
> taking off point, where I am not going to need to revisit the  
> string level
> issue in more than a touch up manner. (It's also very helpful as a  
> starting
> point for damper work).

My exact same experience, starting as I do with the hammer tops as  
the take-off point.

> I'm sure we all are on the same page (you, Chris S, a couple others  
> who
> have been joining the conversation), and just have slightly different
> approaches to what works most efficiently for each of us.

I'm sure of that too, and if not because I know each of you  
personally, then because I read it in your posts.

I just had to jump in because I saw a majority of the discussion on  
this thread running in circles on the matter of leveling the piano  
(or the stage...<G>.....BTW, thanks to Dan Tassin). Certainly,  
there's a legitimate concern here (as there is with the matter of  
pitch reference, which BTW I owe a report on).

But in case anyone couldn't get beyond the "calibration phase", my  
approach seemed reasonable to offer. Lay a straight edge across the  
hammer flanges, and that should be a good working representation of  
the straight edge of the keybed. (OK, if hammer center #88, 56" away  
from #1, is 0.05" higher than #1, do the math to find out just  
skewing that produces. It's up to the individual whether that's a  
huge error or minute. Alice in Wonderland had a similar quandry.)

And I was also keenly interested in who else might be doing this as  
well, because over the years I haven't found a single one. I remember  
trying to describe this to one of the great venerable ones (on this  
list) at a regional seminar a few years back. I could never get  
further into the scenario than "fitting checks out in standard  
position, but doesn't in the shift". He couldn't conceive from his  
experience that this would still be an issue after the first stages  
of the regulation/voicing. He was sure that there was some small  
detail I'd overlooked, like the keybed maple plugs that the glides  
travel on, having inconsistent shift position indentations. (OK, time  
to move on.)

No, I didn't find anyone here doing this same alternative. And after  
reading your detailed description of the technique which I might have  
been doing for the last twenty years, and how it plays out during the  
course of a regulation/voicing, it was clear that we we're all going  
to end up at the same place, a wonderful piano.

But aside from separate (but equal) starting places (the level on the  
string plane or on the strike points), the business of quickly  
identifying where the out-of-level is valuable. One wouldn't think  
that during the later stages we'd still be finding error in the  
strings, but to rule it out is at one's peril. (As you say, Fred, the  
mating process is constantly revisited.)

(An analogy but a digression: I remember mentioning on PTx that in  
touching up a unison where two of three are in perfect agreement, I  
don't assume that these two are the the ones which which agree with  
the octaves and other intervals on either side. I check and usually  
that's the case, but it's not, enough of the time to make me check.  
Some else on PTx said, never happens. Again, time to move on.)

But at least this time, the instantaneous report as to where the  
error in the fitting lies made sense to one person (Susan Klein). As  
I described it in the 9/91 PTJ, it's like the State Security Police  
trick for finding out who's trying to keep a secret. Get one person  
in the room, and only brute force will get you the answer. Get two  
people, and if they're ready for you, their ability to concoct an  
identical story can equal your ability to crack it. The trick is to  
get three people involved in the room together, because, while two  
people might be able to agree on a story and stick to it, with three  
people, it's impossible. Which is what comparing the standard and  
shift reports does.

Best wishes to all. I'm here to learn and boy is it a feast! (Can you  
tell, it's my one morning off during the summer season.....)

mrbl
wbps at vermontel.net


"We mustn't underestimate our power of teamwork."
     ...........Bob Davis RPT, Pianotech at PTG '97
+++++++++++++++++++++