<html>
<body>
Thanks Dale -<br>
I learned of pitch standard just yesterday, from David at Steinway
Customer service. I remember now that that had come up a while back
in another context. You remind me though to take a look at the
existing wire scale to see what was done.<br><br>
The modifications I mentioned would be the sort that you, Del, Ron,
Terry Farrel and others have been exploring. For example, since
this model used aggraffes all the way to the top, I wonder if, short of
redesigning the plate, you can get the necessary stiffness (and mass?) to
make the other changes worthwhile. Likewise, short of such efforts,
I wonder what the limits of a more "traditional" approach would
be.<br>
Thanks again.<br><br>
David Skolnik<br><br>
At 08:58 AM 1/17/2007, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2>
<b><i>Hi Daid<br>
I have rebuilt one of these. You might check the
archives as there was a thread on these last year. The limitations are
not as bad when the string scale & tension sis assessed correctly.
Mine was scaled for A-458. Yup that's a half step higher. If I did
it over I'd rescale of course.<br>
What type of modifications are you referring to specifically?<br>
Dale<br>
</i></b> <br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>What are the tonal limitations of the upper treble of this type (no
capo d'astro bar)? How far could you / would you go to address
these limitations? This would probably best be addressed to those
who are doing innovative installations. Are there inherent
limitations in this design that would limit the effectiveness of these
modifications?<br><br>
<dd>Were these keyboards originally heavily weighted? I've seen one
which starts with about 10 (ten) 7/16" leads in
A<font size=1>0</font><font size=2>. On first glance (un-disassembled)
they look original.<br><br>
<dd>Thanks <br><br>
<dd>David Skolnik<br>
</font><br>
</dl> </blockquote></body>
<br>
</html>