Mark Davidson wrote: > That's basically what I did. Started out without roller bearing, > but I realized after only five or six notes that I couldn't consistent > numbers, and was seeing up to .5 gram variation for the same > hammer. So rigged up a bearing and started over. > > I think David Love is bugged by the fact the something just > doesn't add up, and I agree. I think David saw the possibility that the measurements, taken by someone who perhaps has had only a little of experience doing this, were scewered by either that inexperience or some other error... such as having the action in decent regulation before taking BW measurements. And, rightly so, pointed out that it is necessary to have dependable data for this kind of stuff. But if you are sure your data is solid, then fine. In that case both David Stanwoods fine graphical representations and the raw numbers tables I supplied are valid and can be used to make decisions with pertainant to what to do for a solution to your problem. > The only other odd thing I have noticed is that the capstan > screws seemed quite high. So maybe the horizontal spread > is normal but not the vertical? The increased distance from > top of capstan to bottom of balance rail hole would decrease > leverage, would it not? > > -Mark Does the Steinway "L" not use those soldered in place rails for whippen and hammers ?? Again... this comment seems a bit odd.... as high capstans would tell us short blow... but as David S pointed out for us the blow length for this model is already too far as it is. As for the difference in leverage for difference in capstan height... I dont think you are going to measure that difference for the Stanwood Key Ratio. -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC