Erwinspiano@AOL.COM wrote: > > nt > I moved the capstans 3/8 of an inch to try to > overcome the key leverage and match the only choice of > shank and wippen for this odd beast available > > It will work but I've never moved capstans that far. > Wow! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dale Erwin>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Hi Dale... On my first run through with Stanwood I found I had to move the cap and heel almost 10 mm forward because of a similiar problem. Combined with hammers that were about 0.5 grams lighter across the board this made for a huge difference. I did end up with the black keys 12 mm over the whites, and a full 10mm dip to do the job of getting the hammer up to the strings with ok aftertouch tho. If I had to do that one over I would have been just a tad more conservative in the cap and heel move me thinks. Leads were at what is my standard for the time being... a straight read off of Stanwoods number 3 chart of key lead maximums. I had never moved capstans before at all and it took me at least a week to decide to go for the gusto :) Worked out great tho. The owner just loved the piano. And it did play well. Come to think of it this instrument ended up with leverage levels perhaps a bit in excess of what was actually needed. And as a result reasonably mid range mass levels... giving a middle of the road inertia level I would suppose. It would be maybe a good idea to try and chart how an action feels with different combinations of leverage amounts and mass/inertia amounts. Given three zones for each that would yeild nine configurations. Should actually be a doable task eh ? RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC