<html> <body> Al - Steinway's spec for key dip is between .390" and .420" so,at 10mm (.394") you're well within range.  The only reason I mentioned dip was relating to the jack binding the rep lever window butt felt.  If that's not happening, there would be no reason to play with the dip.  I think Mike Spaulding's image of the self-locking taper is the paradigm to use as you look at your piano again.  I had another Steinway this morning on which I had done the action some years ago.  The treble checking was OK but I was having some trouble in the bass.  I noticed that the convergence angle of the tail and check was a tiny bit too severe, so I gently sanded the tail a bit flatter (less radius) and slightly more angle, so that the convergence was more congruent, and it worked fine, even without re-roughing.  Good luck tomorrow. David Skolnik At 08:24 AM 3/16/2008, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">David,   These are all original parts and I did check jack clearance, which is good.   One thing you mentioned is very interesting. In order to get the proper after touch, I had to set the key dip at 10mm which is a little more than Steinway recommends. If all else fails, I will reset the touch to Steinway specs in the bass to see if that helps any, but I'm sure the problem is elsewhere.   I also agree; (snip) "the buckskin & felt on the newer checks offer almost no resilience the profile at the top of the backcheck face forces the tail to bounce off, as you describe in your post"   Al Guecia     ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Skolnik" <<a href="mailto:davidskolnik@optonline.net"> davidskolnik@optonline.net</a>> To: "Pianotech List" <<a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a>> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 1:02 AM Subject: Re: Steinway M Backcheck Problem > Mike - > I think the self-locking taper image is an apt analogy.  I had > occasion this afternoon to be working on a recent vintage Steinway D > which has what I think is the same condition that Al has described, > and I would just add a few details to my previous summary: > - the buckskin & felt on the newer checks offer almost no resilience > - the profile at the top of the backcheck face forces the tail to > bounce off, as you describe in your post. > - one other regulating parameter can have a significant impact on > checking: if either the dip is excessive, or if the particular > combination of parts employed in rebuilding force the jack to firmly > contact the butt felt in the rep lever window, the resulting friction > can absorb enough energy from the hammer rebound to compromise checking. > > As for the particular version of the problem in the low bass, the > requisite stiff, heavier spring might have something to do with it.  Or not. > > David Skolnik > > > At 10:45 AM 3/15/2008, you wrote: >>David, >> >>Good comprehensive summary of the issues, and I agree with you on >>all points, particularly the folly of roughing the tails or check leather. >>If roughing improves checking, there is an unresolved problem somewhere. >> >>I like to think of the backchecks and tails as a self-locking taper. >>This is the same mechanism that keeps the chuck in your drill >>press.  As long as there is some amount of friction, no matter how >>small, there is a taper angle below which the taper will lock, and >>above which it will fall apart.  In the context of backchecks, if >>the check is laid way back then adjusted to contact near the tip of >>the tail, the hammer will bounce off the check.  Go to the other >>extreme, with the check near vertical and contacting up near the >>shank, and the hammer will check, but not at a consistent height: >>the harder you play, the lower it will check.  Somewhere in between >>is the optimum, where the hammer will reliably check,  and will be >>difficult to push further down. >>Admittedly, there are pianos where this sweet spot is not easy to >>find, especially in the low bass. >> >>Mike > > > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1330 - Release Date: 3/15/2008 2:36 PM</blockquote></body> </html>