<html> <body> Do Steinways (nine footers) like bigger, heavier hammers like that.  Seems to me I've heard they are a little heavy to begin with and come into their own after a few filings.  Comments, controversy? Andrew Anderson At 06:37 PM 6/29/2007, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Renner Big Blues are also available this way.   Alan Eder -----Original Message----- From: Don Mannino <DMannino@kawaius.com> To: College and University Technicians <caut@ptg.org> Sent: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 1:09 pm Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway D elevations <tt>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: <a href="mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org">caut-bounces@ptg.org</a> [<a href="mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org" eudora="autourl"> mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org</a>] 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 > </tt> <hr> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at <a href="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437">AOL.com</a> .</blockquote></body> </html>