Hammer Tail Cove

[Isaac OLEG]

Hello,

I'd cove, without anything to prove why, but I like the idea (tuning
the tail of the hammer, in some sort)

And why is it I prefer backchecks with a little recess vs. flat ones ?

An action with too little noise seem harder to deep energize, to me
(an effect like when the keyboard pressure screws don't touch the
keybed)

But of course , noise have un up limit as well, if the piano tone
can't stand it we have no more benefit.

Then, is the checking noise comprised in that mix ? the question is
yet open I guess.

Seem to me also that the firmness of the backchecks wire is important,
as the hammer may be moving all kind of directions, the shank vibes,
etc, and these moves are not stopped immediately when the hammer touch
the backchecks.

Where is that high speed camera ?

best regards.

Isaac OLEG

-----Message d'origine-----
De : pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]De la
part de Jon Page
Envoye : samedi 21 aout 2004 23:02
A : pianotech@ptg.org
Objet : Hammer Tail Cove


Is there a reason for this cove? Other than to reduce weight,
would it per chance reduce impact noise into the backcheck?
Have some magical effect on tone production?

I have hung a set which have a nice SW (1/2 medium),
I'm wondering if any flack would be taken other than
for a non-traditional application.

The amount of material removed by coving is about a third of a gram
which relates to less than 2 g's at the key front. Hardly worth the
effort.

Anyway, I was just wondering what the general consensus might be
before I get the action back to the piano later this week.


Regards,

Jon Page, piano technician
Harwich Port, Cape Cod, Mass.
mailto:jonpage@comcast.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


_______________________________________________
pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives