Hi, Dave, At 11:30 PM 10/14/2010, you wrote: >Sorry Al, neither argument seems logical, at least not at 2:00 AM. >First, the idea that crowning the key level accurately anticipate >the settling of the keys is absurd. Is that for a piano that;s >played heavily, lightly, or not at all? And how much settling would >be taking place with half-rounds, vs. felt punchings? David Love >pointed out the dilemma faced once any settling HAS occurred: do we >recrown? in which case we obviate the premise that we're doing it to >end up with a level keyboard. or do we pull out front punchings to >restore aftertouch. Let's put this aside for the moment. >As for any keybed radius... what are we talking about? the entire >bed or the front rail? Clearly the concept of creating opposing >curves to establish positive interface between the front rail and >the keybed would apply to just that location: the front rail. But >that's not where we establish key level. The balance rail interface >doesn't depend upon flection to achieve positive connection. There is so much confusion and misinformation about this that it is really frightening. In a traditionally forefinished NY S&S (specifically, one in which the work has been properly done), there are multiple curved and planar surfaces. That is, some are supposed to be dead flat (for example, the bottom of the trailing/back edge of the back rail of the keyframe and the area of the keybed on which it rests). Others are supposed to have opposing convex radii (created by whatever means, but equal and opposing). Still others are supposed to have opposing concave radii (again, created by whatever means, but nominally equal and opposing). If you remember how Chris Robinson used to talk about pairs of opposing involuted curves in the action, you get a similar picture. A part of the issue (and, not a small one) is that, as with so many other things in piano manufacture, things have changed a very great deal over time. This is precisely why, at least as to NY S&S instruments, one size simply does not fit all when it comes to making things work. While it is absolutely true that those who do substantive rebuilding have an opportunity to make some changes, even during that process, there are limitations unless one is willing to do things like completely replacing the keybed, change the frazing on the top of the inner rim, etc, etc, etc. There are, as is often demonstrated on this list, a number of people who can and do do this kind of work. Putting aside for a moment the whole range of discussions which then arise around whether or not something is "better" or is "still" a Yamawaisteinchickwinbechendorfer after such redesigning and rebuilding has taken place; most technicians simply do not have the time (even if they have the skill set) to do that kind of thing; and, even if they do, do their customers want or need that kind of work and can they pay for it? Not everyone who owns tools falls into that rarified category; and, even if they do, are their customers willing to eviscerate the resale value of their instruments? Believe it or not, this really is not off-point. Without regard to how well or how poorly the forefinishing process is carried out on any specific instrument, it is a per-instance piece of custom work. It simply is not going to be identical at all times and in all places. Our job is to take each instrument as we find it; and, taking into account the overall situation of the piano, it's uses, owners, their budget, our skills, etc, etc, etc, come up with a plan to establish and maintain that individual instrument in the best condition in which it can reasonably be maintained. Or, put another way, are we technicians, or are we new parts installers. >The argument...she maka no sense! but gets a lotta mileage. With respect, the argument makes perfect and demonstrable sense. The problem is that the whole forefinishing process has not been somehow actually publicly demonstrated with either sufficient competency or frequency for enough people to really be able to grasp what is going on during the process so that they have a better knowledge of how things (should) fit and why, and can better diagnose and treat issues as they arise. Everything runs from deck height, as measure from the top of the keybed to the underside of the string at note 62. To the extent that measurement is incorrect, everything else in the entire forefinishing process is compromised (beyond the state of compromise required for things to work even when that measurement is spot on). This has been discussed at great length here a number of times before, so I'm sure there are a number of entries in the archives. The importance of this latter is painfully obvious the minute one sits down to a "remanufactured" (e.g., "Heritage") instrument, and discovers that the damper system cannot be regulated because the blocks have been mislocated; and they have been mislocated because, in the installation of the new S&S/Kluge keyframe/etc, no attention was paid to actually fitting the new action to the existing keybed, let alone working at the same time to modify the existing keybed to mate properly with the new keyframe....etc, etc, etc. Anyway...always more food for thought. Best. Horace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20101015/64205784/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC