[CAUT] Knuckle height (Was Re: hammer line)

[Alan McCoy]

Hey Chris,

So would you mind writing up your procedure for sizing? I like the idea
conceptually from an efficiency standpoint, and being lazy....

Alan


> From: Chris Solliday <csolliday at rcn.com>
> Reply-To: "College and University Technicians <caut at ptg.org>" <caut at ptg.org>
> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:38:47 -0500
> To: "College and University Technicians <caut at ptg.org>" <caut at ptg.org>
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Knuckle height (Was Re:   hammer line)
> 
> This could get laughable, it's true. But,
> I sort only by weight after thinning, and have verified that there is a
> direct correlation between weight and pitch (lighter is higher). So that
> eliminates the need for the boinking, except that as Ric B points out every
> 50 or so has one that sounds like it has no pitch, and that one should be
> removed or at least recognized when voicing (or scratching by the ear works
> and is very fast compared to boinking) and replaced (after weight
> modification of course).
>  I don't sort by flange resistance but I do correct flange resistance,
> mostly with a variety of sizing solutions. Repinning up is OK, which I do
> for almost every set of wippens at the balancier flange, but down usually
> only leads to more repinning after tearing up the felt with reamers. I have
> tried to burnish after reaming, and even sizing after reaming and
> burnishing, but they just seem to make noise sooner than others. Probably
> just my lack of patience and technique. Anyway sizing works best for me and
> manufacturers of parts tell me that is what they prefer to do rather than
> pinning so who knows? I do get to see the results of both assaults years
> down the road and like the sizing better in the long run.
> Back to sorting, I don't sort for knuckle diameter variation but I do check
> for tight wrapping and reglue one side when necessary which does alter the
> measurable diameter. I think that although it may introduce a certain
> elegance to sort them by diameter, it eliminates the possiblity of easily
> sorting by weight, which is much more productive, because as Ron points out
> you will need more sets to make it work at that point.
> So I use only one set of shanks except for one or two clunkers, I sort them
> twice for weight, once before I thin and once after, I clean up pinning
> resistance and make them all the same, and I fix any loose knuckle wraps. It
> really doesn't take that much time and it solves pre voicing weight issues
> and reduces the amount of work I have to do to achieve a smooth stike weight
> calibration. If you don't believe thinning has any beneficial effect then
> elilminating that step leaves sorting only ONCE! no big deal, well really it
> is a big deal, well ...but... Does anyone not check flange resistance before
> assembly? or for loose knuckle skins? considering the overall reduction in
> voicing procedures and time I'll have to conclude that what I do actually
> gives me more time to spend with the family. And then there's customer
> satisfaction...
> Just one man crying in piano technology's wilderness of mirrors.
> Chris Solliday
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Nossaman" <rnossaman at cox.net>
> To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:12 AM
> 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
>