I guess that's the true meaning of "The devil is in the details". David Love davidlovepianos at comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Ron Nossaman Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:13 PM To: College and University Technicians Subject: Re: [CAUT] Knuckle height (Was Re: hammer line) > Bottom line, a change of 1 mm in knuckle height is definitely > significant, and something to keep an eye on. I think it makes sense to > sort shanks if this can be done fairly rapidly, and I'd probably put the > high ones in the bass, where thicker strings and farther letoff might > actually make this a good thing in terms of consistency. But I don't > think it is something to lose a lot of sleep over on a day to day basis <G>. > Regards, > Fred Sturm I think I'm beginning to get the hang of this - in a manner of speaking. If the shank set is pre-thinned, we first sort on shank width. That's pretty easy, so far. Then we check the pinning, and sort within the previous shank width sort, or re-pin to an accuracy at least as good as sorting, so we have a reasonable gradient of center friction. Then we sort on tap tone, strike weight (hammers, shanks, and/or the combination of the two), and knuckle height, so all considerations for each are met to produce the ideal set. No problem. I conservatively (generously) estimate (guess) that at least ten sets of shanks and flanges will be necessary to put together no more than five sets even vaguely conforming to these requirements, accepting that this is even possible at all, much less a reasonable standard. So who's packing sand up who's Thermos, or going through the forest counting nematodes with a microscope and not noticing the trees? Just thought it was about time someone asked. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC