Xn Changes (was: Need a Mason Expert)

[Delwin D Fandrich]

Bill Ballard wrote:
> 
> On 9/28/97,  Delwin D Fandrich, pianobuilders@olynet.com wrote:
> >David,
> >
> >Yes well, just like with the sometimes inappropriate changes made to
> >action geometry, not all rescaling work is done correctly.
> 
> Golly Del, that remark seems to beg a discussion of  "inappropriate
> changes made to
> action geometry". Certainly, it's well understood that in the matter of
> string scales, the inharmonicity introduced simply by coupling these
> srtings to a (relatively) massive soundboard panel is not going to be
> adjusted by changing wre sizes, etc. Nor is the business of soundboard
> induced inharmonicity going to reduce itself to simple formulas as
> neatly as is the strings' intrinsic inharmonicity.
> 
> As to "changes made to action geometry", the consequences of
> inappropriate changes are eseentially mechanical, and (because I can
> understand them) not terribly complicated. The trouble we can get into is
> limited to 1.) setting a key ratio which may put too long keystick of a
> long grand under too much stress (and risk of failure), and 2.) accepting
> a strike ratio solution to a hammer weight problem which for its
> execution requires to deep a keydip . In the work that David Stanwood
> (and I, as his student ) do,  screwing with the action srpead doesn't
> count for much. (Remember, gang, that the 3:2 ratio of the rep lever  is
> not the most effective place to make a change in overall leverage, but
> more importantly, changing the spread, ie. moving the rep center back or
> front, is moving the contact points -at the cap and the knuckle- in the
> same direction and are not changing the rep's leverage ratio.) Yet if
> there is one palce where the motion of parts can be moved out of
> comfortable working tolerances (and into jacks crushing into the front
> end of rep lever windows), the spread is where you can get into trouble
> the fastest.
> 
> Sacred cows and divine burgers. Ten years ago, Ken Sloane published in
> the PTJ an description of how a heavy S&S D action was cured with a set
> of shanks whose knuckle mounting made the "jack-parrallel-to
> knuckle-molding" impossible. He did sort of miss that nifty aligmnet
> while he was looking at it during that step oif the regulation. But what
> those shanks did for the action resistence was far more important than
> some traditional benchmark (which by the time the pianist sat down at it
> was burrieds deep inside the action.)
> 
> I've got plenty to learn here and am an eager student. So, when we've
> straightened out that the proof of a good rescaling is not how it looks
> coming out of the printer, but how it sounds when the pianist sits downat
> the finished product, we can move on to "inappropriate changes made to
> action geometry". I'm all curled up at your feet and waiting <g>
> 
> Bill Ballard, RPT
> New Hampshire Chapter, PTG
> 
> "You'll make more money selling my advice than following it" Steve
> Forbes, quoting his father, Malcom.

------------------------------------

My Dear Bill,

Quickly! Sit down, have a sip of brandy, relax! That’s it, relax. Calmly
now...there, feeling better? Ah, good...now let me explain:

I do believe that you have taken my use of the word “inappropriate”
inappropriately and are jumping to David’s defense when none is needed. 

The word “in·ap·pro·pri·ate” simply means “unsuitable or improper; not
appropriate.”

In using that word I meant only that some action changes that are done
by some people some of the time are done improperly or inappropriately.
That is, sometimes changes are made to actions that are not appropriate.
Surely both you—I’m assuming that you’ve worked on more than just a few
actions—and David Stanwood—it’s obvious that he has—have come across
actions that have been “modified” in ways that simply don’t work very
well. Who knows what theories—if any—were being applied? Perhaps it was
the result of a simple mistake being made. Perhaps it was deliberate.
Perhaps someone put on the wrong hammershanks. Perhaps the wrong wippens
were used—I’ve seen Pratt-Read wippens cobbled onto Steinway frames and
I’ve seen Steinway wippens on Baldwin frames. I saw one action with
capstans that had been moved from one wrong location to another wrong
location. Well, surely you get the idea...

And please don’t try to convince me that everyone who has read one of
David’s articles or taken one of his classes suddenly goes forth and
makes every judgment call correctly on all of the actions he or she
works on from there on out. We all know better than that. For that
matter, please don’t try to convince me that David did not make a
mistake or two while he was working out his principles of action
geometry. I won’t buy that either. (But I will assume that he has the
professional integrity to have not released them to the public. Or if
one did slip out, to have fixed it at his own expense.) How about you?
Any mistakes in your closet? (Don’t answer that!)

As may be, I meant no criticism of David’s work. I used that
illustration in response to his post because, based on his extensive
work in that area, I thought he would understand it. And, until I hear
differently from him, I will continue to think it was an appropriate
one.

Regards,

Del

"Before you jump to a conclusion, make sure there's a safe place to
land."