Yes, sorry, Terry, I didn't mean to imply a special connection between lost motion and re-faced hammers. I simply meant that, as you say, taking up the lost motion can be the single most beneficial step. Jon, I know attention to letoff and backcheck etc can help, but I'm talking about a situation where the action operation is reasonable and funds are limited. Annie, yes I was really musing over various pianos I've re-faced over the years. The Challen I did on Saturday, I'd already taken up the lost motion on at a previous tuning. The market in this area generally won't bear much in the way of regulation costs. One thing I find helps persuade people about re-facing is that they can SEE what I'm talking about. I use my flashlight or whatever, to get a good light, and show them the hammer surfaces and explain that over time the strings cut into the felt like cheesewires, and they can see the effect for themselves. Then I explain using my a fist as "hammer" and three fingers as "strings" how instead of a clean blow, the sides of the groves can "stroke" the strings, and the bottoms of the grooves can be at different depths (if the customer is technically-minded, I explain about phase cancellation). But the main thing is, they can SEE the problem. Best, David. "I'm curious why you separate out regulating lost motion from the rest of regulating tasks. Just because you have filed the hammers, doesn't dictate regulating lost motion. However, I do agree that lost motion regulation on a long-neglected piano is often one of the most beneficial single regulating steps".
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC