[CAUT] Steinway D elevations

[David Ilvedson]

Correct tail length below the shank is determined how?

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Don Mannino" <DMannino at kawaius.com>
To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
Received: 6/29/2007 1:09:39 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway D elevations


>Doug,

>In my opinion, the best performance will come if the hammers are bored
>to fit the string height, and the tails are then trimmed to the correct
>distance below the shanks after the hammers are hung. This will allow
>regulation for the best action performance, leaving fudge room in the
>regulation for wear and such.

>This means ordering extra long, un-coved hammers from someone like
>Ronson - I don't know if anyone else is currently making something like
>that.  Perhaps Brooks has some Abels configured like that.

>I haven't bought hammers from Steinway in a long time, but with a high
>center string height I think their tails will end up being short in the
>center.  This necessitates either lengthening the tails or raising the
>backchecks.  I don't like raising the backchecks that far, though, and
>adding wood to the tails is kind of a hassle.

>I would go ahead and measure height at each note and try to taper your
>boring distance to match.  Measure your action center height carefully,
>though, and check the keybed for relative flatness.  Everything tends to
>be curved on those pianos, and this can throw off your boring specs.

>Don Mannino


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Douglas Wood
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 12:12 PM
>> To: College and University Technicians
>> Subject: [CAUT] Steinway D elevations
>> 
>> I have a question for those of you with experience in custom 
>> boring hammers. Our heavily-used and very nice D#542295 has 
>> an elevation challenge that I'm working on. The piano 
>> generally works very well, but has a reputation for being 
>> "tricky". I think part of this is due to the following problem:
>> 
>> The string height in the upper tenor is nearly 1/8" higher 
>> than the sections on either side, and note 88 is 1/8 lower 
>> than the majority of the piano.
>> 
>> So, the regulation does work, but that central section has 
>> the shanks a bit high off the rest felts, and the rest of the 
>> piano has shanks nearly on the rest felts. As I say, it 
>> works, but I'm considering a custom boring job to match the 
>> bore to the string heights. I will, of course, revisit stack 
>> height before boring, as I'd like to do the figures only once more.
>> 
>> The real question is, how far from nominal bore spec can one 
>> go before encountering other problems? And should I follow 
>> the string heights closely all the way across, or do more 
>> like Steinway does, and allow regulation to take up some of 
>> the variance?
>> 
>> Doug Wood
>>