thick or thin

[Mike and Jane Spalding]

Wim,

I've been wondering the same thing.  The range of thicknesses available from the supply houses indicates that there is room for considerable variation in preference.  I began by outfitting myself with some of each thickness, assuming I would vary the thickness to suit the individuality of each piano.  But I'm settling in on one thickness all the time (medium), and a wider range of cardboard to compensate.  It seems to me that the amount of compressibility will be apparent to the pianist, and can / should be optimised.  also, the thicker the punching the more difficult it will be to set key height today and have it the same tomorrow/next season.

Recent regulation of vertical for a teacher who wanted "a heavier touch and deeper feel" included new thickest balance rail and front rail felt punchings, and she is convinced that she feels the softness of the new felt.  How can we separate this from the effect of advancing damper timing, generous aftertouch, mellow voicing, etc.?

regards,

Mike Spalding RPT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Wimblees@aol.com>
To: <Pianotech@ptg.org>; <caut@ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:31 AM
Subject: thick or thin


> I am in the process of re-regualting a S&S M, where one of the main problems 
> was that the keys were too low, (they were almost touching the front rail 
> when depressed). I raised them all with cardboard and paper punchings. 
> 
> As I was doing this, I got thinking about this question. Are there any rules 
> of thumb, or what is the general consensus, as to what thickness the wool 
> balance rail punching should be? Should we have thick punchings with fewer 
> paper/cardboard punchings, or thin punchings with lots of paper/cardboard? I 
> guess I could ask the same for the front rail. Do we use thick felts and 
> fewer cardboard, or the other way around? Or does it make any difference?
> 
> Wim 
>