Fw: Fw: Special tuning pins

[Erwinpiano]

----- Original Message -----
From: <larudee@pacbell.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Special tuning pins


> Hi, Dale
>
> I certainly can't argue with results, but permit me to speculate again on
a
> better way to achieve them.  I don't want to put Don Mannino on the spot,
but he
> once expressed doubt as to the importance of ease of tuning, as boasted by
some
> manufacturers.

   Paul, I may be wrong but to me ease of tuning is critical. If a piano
isn't easy to tune,i.e. the pins don't move easily ,the piano will not be in
or stay in tune long as more sophisticated and skilled hammer techniques are
required to stabalize the pitch.

 Ease of tuning is a good thing, all else being equal, but if it
> is achieved by permitting more flexibility in the pin, there may be a
tradeoff
> in terms of stability

  Yes but all pins are flexible and can be flagpoled or what not


.  If ease of tuning means that the pin is flexible enough
> to be pulled, pushed or torqued to pitch without rotating (resetting) it
in the
> block, it can lose that pitch in the same way.

  Totally agree.,But this can happen with pin with any pin especially non
bushed tuning pin arrangements.

   Increased friction at the
> bearing points can help to compensate for this, but is that the best way?
>
> I think that small pins in an open face pin block is very close to the
best we
> can do.  Stability is achieved in this design by placing the point of
string
> tension very close to the fulcrum of the pin, i.e. the top of the pin
block.
> This limits the amount that flagpoling can change the pitch.  In a closed
block,
> such stability is achieved by using a larger pin, since the string cannot
be as
> close to the top of the block.  I am suggesting that the larger pins in
this
> design could be improved by reducing the diameter where it meets the
string.
> This also liberates the larger portion of the pin to be any diameter that
works
> best, and not necessarily one that is constrained by the need to consider
the
> consequences of a larger diameter at the coils.
>
> Of course the pins that I ordered are not designed for this purpose.  They
are
> merely oversize pins to be used when replacing 2/0 pins in an existing pin
> block.  The advantage is that they fit snugly in the enlarged hole (1 1/2
sizes
> larger) yet are still standard size where they contact the music wire and
where
> the tuning tip fits.

  I've given this some thought and can see this has merit and that you've
thunk this thru


  Useful for replacing individual loose pins because they
> match the size of the surrounding pins.  Useful when replacing bass
strings for
> the same reason.  Less costly than replacing the block yet better than
using
> fully oversize pins.

       Veeerrryyy Interesting!!!!
>
> See you in Reno if not before.
>
> Paul
>
> Erwinpiano wrote:
>
> >   Hi Paul
> >
> >     I know this not exactly where your trying to go but I've been using
no.
> > 1 pins in all new( buldoc and stwy) blocks for three years and enjoyed
the
> > fit/feel and they seem to be rigid enough which I think was someone's
> > concern.  I took this hint from the Japanese. All those foreign
iano( which
> > tune so smoothly) mostly have No. 1's which also is important to recall
when
> > restringing them.i.e. use 2's and not three's unless of course bigger is
> > better
> >
> >     Best
> >     Dale Erwin
> >
> > > I would like to see nothing larger than 1/0 diameter at the coils and
> > > enough
> > > thickness the rest of the way to ensure optimum tuning
characteristics.
> > > This
> > > can vary according to piano design.  In Steinways perhaps 2.5/0
(7.20mm.
> > > or
> > > .284") might give the right degree of rigidity.  In open face pin
blocks
> > > the
> > > only reason to use my pin design might be to have more surface contact
> > > area in
> > > the block.  The enlarged section of the pin does not project far
enough
> > > above
> > > the block to affect flagpoling.  In closed blocks, on the other hand,
it
> > > can
> > > make a considerable difference.
> > >
> > > Paul Larudee
> > >
> > > Joseph Garrett wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul,
> > > > Now that you have described the tuning pins. I get it. Although, I'm
in
> > > > agreement with the rationale, I'm not sure I fully see the reason
for
> > such a
> > > > pin. Is it possibly for the situation specifically in S&S grands? If
so,
> > > > then I see the reason, as well. Thanks for the explanation.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Joe Garrett, R.P.T.
>