David,Thanks much for this post. Details of an actual piano, with no conjecture. I was particularly interested in how you got rid of the cantilevered bass, thinking that you must have had to grind the plate. This is the kind of post I am most interested in, by far. I wish I had spent more of my time in Rochester with the rebuilder showcase! I'd like to see what could be done to the backlength of a M&H A in the low bass as there is only about a half inch of wire between the rear bridge pin and hitch coil.And speaking of M&H, I will have a BB of 70's vintage to work on in the next year or so and I'd like to make some changes. Have you (or anyone else) come up with an effective way of decreasing the sharp string angles on the BB of this era?  I want to keep the string fairly close to parallel to the plate as the string leaves the tuning pins, decrease the angle as the string approaches the agraffe and capo while keeping the duplex length reasonably short. I can grind down the plate near the agraffes (and grind off counterbearing bars near capo) to reduce the angle there, but in order to keep the keep the string from coming off the tuning pin at too much of an angle, I'll need to have an intermediate bearing (half-round brass). Ideas? Thanks again for the information. So much to learn, so little time! See a few questions below:   Alan McCoy On Mon Dec 11 20:50 , 'David Love' sent: <blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(245, 245, 245); margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 0px;">  <div class="Section1">There was no bass float.    Could you describe how one goes about "floating" the bass, and why one would do that?  The plate was modified by grinding off the counterbearing bars on the tuning pin side in the capo section and adding brass half ovals to increase counterbearing angle and shorten the length somewhat.What angle and length were you aiming for?   Interestingly, I had originally restrung the piano over the original soundboard and used Isaac hammers which needed a fair bit of lacquer to get things moving. I didn’t like the result and after much consideration decided to use this opportunity to explore some new design ideas and executions. After putting in the new board, the lacquered hammers (after some voicing), while sounding ok, did not produce exactly the sound I wanted and I couldn’t quite get them there no matter what kind of voicing I tried. I ended up removing the hammers and replacing them with Ronsen Bacon felt hammers, unadulterated. Interestingly, while the Bacon felt hammers are clearly softer (and have more felt) than the Isaac hammers, they produce more brilliance in the treble. Go figure. Care to speculate why a softer hammer would provide more brilliance than a harder hammer given the same board and duplex system?  The clarity and warmth through the rest of the piano is pretty stunning. It produces more than ample power. Does it sound like a Steinway? I can only report anecdotal evidence but one of my oldest customers who I frequently invite to come play on instruments I’ve completed and who, himself, owns two Hamburg C’s commented that the piano took him back to the NY Steinway he grew up playing. <div> David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com </div><blockquote style="border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color black; border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; margin: 5pt 0in 5pt 3.75pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;"> <div> </div> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> <hr>Msg sent via @Mail - http://atmail.com/