[CAUT] bechstein

[David Love]

113mm is standard spread.  I would stick with Renner S/F.  The Abel Select
would be a good choice, in my view, and you can take quite a bit off by
table saw tapering.  

David Love
davidlovepianos at comcast.net 
www.davidlovepianos.com

-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David
Ilvedson
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 10:28 PM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] bechstein

The action regulates well...I was wondering about the action spread...113
mm, but that seems OK?   The slotted wippen rail has a washer impression
quite a bit closer towards the balance rail...
The capstans seem to be in line with the balance rail.   I will be
installing new shanks and flanges, probably Renner but I'm considering Abel,
so the knuckle alignment should be good...
I haven't looked closely at the magic line with a thread, but just eying it,
it seems OK...
I"m leaning towards the Abel Standard...the Abel Select really seemed to
heavy...stock sample #29 was 10.5 grams...no shank...1/2 high.   I wonder if
that 10.5 could be brought down 2 grams?   I'm thinking adding a pit of
weight to the Standards makes more sense than removing from Select.   Any
comments on the difference between these hammers?   Both seem to be a
beautiful consistent hammer...

John Delacourts comments about Abel making Bechstein hammers makes me think
they might be a good match for this piano...I did try the a few in the piano
and like the sound...

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044


----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>
To: "Pianotech List" <pianotech at ptg.org>, "College and University
Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
Received: 8/6/2006 9:34:56 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] bechstein


>With the exception of note 16 (not sure what's going on there), I don't see
>any real problem here.  Even if you were you to reweigh down to 37 or 38
>grams, you are comfortably under FW maximums (as outlined by Stanwood
>charts).  You do have some room to add weight especially if you wanted to
>push up the balance weight a little.  An R of 5.6 or 5.7 is a reasonable
>target, in my view, for good regulation specs--check and see though.  If
you
>smooth out the strike weights in the basic range that your hammers seem to
>be falling and set up the front weights accordingly aiming for a uniform
>balance weight, you should be fine.  I would double check the measurements
>on #16.  My guess is that there is some measurement error.  Trying to get
>perfectly uniform R numbers is generally not possible depending on things
>like uniform knuckle hanging, straight capstan line and capstan line
>parallel to the balance rail line (which it appears you may not have), not
>to mention elimination of measurement error (always a factor).  

>If the current hammers produce a tone that you like with the current
weight,
>why would you change hammers?  If you want to experiment with weight, you
>can always use the binder clip method--removeable too!

>David Love
>davidlovepianos at comcast.net 
>www.davidlovepianos.com