Fred - Thanks for the report. I will be installing a set of these on an S&S A-III that I recently acquired. This time last year I installed the composite reps and anodized capstans on a B, and was able to get exactly the touch characteristics I was after with significantly reduced front weights. On this A I will be adding in the keypins plus a set of assist springs on the composite reps. I plan on using the springs to reduce BW's & FW's only minimally (say, 5g or 6g) and then mostly as a micro-adjusters to even out touch and compensate for future SW reduction due to hammer reshaping. My real question at this point is whether or not to use the carbon shanks. On WNG's site they make the point that the stiffness of these shanks is far more consistent than hornbeam, which makes perfect sense, but I am nevertheless concerned about possible tonal effects. I played a new M&H AA with the full composite action a couple of year ago, and didn't detect any obvious differences between it and its non-composite new brethren (I prep these occasionally for a local dealer, so I'm reasonably familiar with them). At the same time I heard that Kawai had experimented with carbon shanks and didn't like the tonal results. Like you I have seen the high-speed films that show clearly how much shanks flex, and the discussions that I have seen here and elsewhere about "tone testing" shanks before installation, as well as the old voicing trick of thinning shanks (either wholesale in the treble or individually) or the use of cedar shanks in old uprights would seem to indicate that noticeable results can had by manipulating shank stiffness. I have even wondered if Dave Stanwood's shank clips might also not have an effect on shank flex along with SW. I had a long talk with Bruce Clark & M&H and he is (understandably) very enthusiastic about these parts. He believes that softer hammers will produce more power with less lacquer than with wooden shanks. They also have more new stuff in the planning stages that will be of great interest to us as action rebuilders. Have you had any direct experience with these shanks? - Mark Fred Sturm wrote: > <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">Hi all, > I posted a while back about the new WNG front rail pins, and the > sizing problem: their stems being smaller than the holes in the rail. > A couple people mentioned some nylon (or similar material) inserts > provided by WNG. They had been left out of my shipment by mistake. I > have now obtained them, and installed a set, and thought I'd share > some info. > The inserts are oversized, both outside and inside diameter. So > the holes in the rail need to be drilled out larger, inserts > installed, then the inserts drilled. They have a good brochure on > their web site telling you how to do all this. I have one comment > about that: the drill bit size they recommend for the initial hole is > #16 .177". The inserts are about .188". I thought that seemed a bit > much of a difference, but was trusting and tried it. When I pressed an > insert into a hole, it would go no more than 2/3 of the way in. At > that point it just distorted (the portion above the hole). So I ended > up re-drilling up a couple sizes, and it went fine. Perhaps the size > they give assumes a softer wood for the front rail. Mine was oak. > In any case, a good system. The pins are wonderful: the polished > anodized aluminum is a great contribution to the profession, slick as > can be and durable. And the insert system is far better than plugging > or filling with something like epoxy and then re-drilling. > Regards, > Fred Sturm > University of New Mexico > fssturm at unm.edu > > > > > > > </div> >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC