Sarah Fox wrote: > Hi Jon, > > You wrote: > > <<That's what I said. If the hammer bore is too short, raise the > whole stack instead of the hammer rail. > Measure along the "Magic Line" to see if this relocation is > viable. Scott already said there was room > under the block to raise the 'rail'.>> > > You mean to raise the entire action stack 7 mm or so??? That's quite > a lot! I thought you were just talking about 1-2 mm elevation in the > hammer rail. Perhaps a better solution, if shimming *must* be done, > is to shim only under the rear supports, so that the action stack > tilts slightly towards the keyboard? This would elevate the hammers > much more, for less change in the overall position of the stack. I dont think so. If you have to raise the action stack even more then a very small bit... 1... tops 2 mm then something is wrong in Denmark... very wrong. I just cant imagine any manufacturer that is anywhere near Schimmel quality making that big of an error. 7 mm is a mile in this connexion. Scott says he's going to get back to us with a bit more detailed information, and I think we will find that when he does, the problem will show itself to be something entirely different. > > I didn't catch whether someone else might have suggested another > possible/likely source for the problem: Perhaps the knuckles are flat??? > > >>However, Ric is right. The most obvious fix is to sand the > back-sides of > >>the buttons, so that you can adjust them a bit higher. > > >No, this would be disastrous if you first don't verify the degree of > >after touch now present. > What this would be achieving would be shifting the useful adjustment > range of the letoff button. The loss of a couple of mm of material > would be completely inconsequential if indeed the letoff buttons > should be adjusted where they are now. The only way this would be > "disastrous" would be if the letoff buttons need to be adjusted > *downwards* to their full extent, in which case a useful 2 mm of range > would be lost. This hardly seems likely. Agreed... disastrous was a rather strong term to begin with, takeing a couple mm off let off buttons that are already adjusted as high as they can go is not going likely to cause any trouble even if the problem turns out to be something completly different. That said... of course one has to confirm that its the appropriate solution to the problem at hand. Our querry pointed distinctly in the direction of the tech believing he simply couldnt regulate these buttons high enough. After due caution about action condition I suggested that if this turned out to be the problem, then resized buttons was a more appropriate solution then raising the hammer rail. > > If indeed there is inadequate aftertouch, then the wippens are > probably sitting too low; hence, the hammer rest position is probably > too low. Why not raise the capstans, setting a higher hammer rest > position? Sand the letoff buttons to adjust higher, and set the > letoff at 1/16". If you can't get a normal power stroke out of this > action, it seems it would have been designed with the wrong geometry, > no? I doubt Schimmel does such things. But if all this is true, the > buttons still require sanding. If there is inadequate aftertouch... then you need to find out why. No good just going at the capstans without further ado there Sarah. Could be key dip, could be key height... could actually be a whole lot of things in the picture. But we wander a bit with this.... lets wait and see what Scott comes up with next eh ?? > > However, cherchez les knuckles! If the action was ever "right" with > the world, then the buttons probably had enough adjustment left in > them to yield proper letoff -- perhaps only barely. Now with > flattened elderly knuckles (??), the letoff cannot be adjusted high > enough. Plausible theory?? I have never run into an action that could not acheive proper letoff height because of worn knuckles alone. > > Peace, > Sarah > Cheers RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC