Ron, et al,
First, please accept my apologies for taking so long to get this out.
Second, it is a long post, which was previously posted elsewhere, and in
response to a thread on another list. So, since the parts of this post
most relevant to Ron's original question, I have moved to the top, leaving
the rest as additional information, for those who may only subscribe here.
Thus, I have left most of the original posts intact, with the comments of
myself and others set off from each other in a hopefully easily
recognizable fashion.
So, first a bit of rambling on accelerated action issues:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(hg) - responding to a point of the thread below.
First of all, this problem may speak to one of basic misunderstandings
about the hows and whys of the accelerated action. I think that my first
question is "what is the vintage of this instrument?" If it is
pre-accelerated action (ca. 1929-1931, or so), that is one thing; if it is
between then and ca. 1959-1961, it is another; if it is between ca.
1959-1961 and ca. 1984-1985, that is another; and, if it is after 1985, it
is still another thing yet.
OK - what do I mean?
Pre-accelerated.
The pre-accelerated action was weighed off by traditional methods; e.g.,
smallest number of weights reasonably possible, as close to the end of the
key as reasonably possible, after appropriate shaping, pinning, regulation,
etc.
Early accelerated.
The "original" accelerated action (Del, or somebody, please jump in here)
was developed with the active participation of, among others, Josef
Hofmann. (Hofmann, in addition to helping S&S with a variety of uncredited
patent work, invented what evolved into the pneumatic shock absorber.)
Anyway, this action had several basic differences. First, the patent
description of this "new action" included not only the fulcrums used in
place of traditional center rail punchings, but also, a specific method and
layout of basic key weighting. This new system pre-placed a varying number
of weights as close to the fulcrum as possible. Then, after the
appropriate basic action work was done, see supra, the action was weighed
off again, with the additional weights placed to the front rail end of the
keys, but still, as close to the balance rail as reasonably possible
without interfering with the weights already pre-installed.
Does this increase mass? Yes. Does increasing the mass increase the
inertia? Yes. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Well, no. Why?
The important issue in re: inertia is not limited to the inertia itself at
rest, but to what I know as the "moment of inertia" or, in other terms, the
amount of force required to affect this inertia - Note that this can be
while the mass is in motion, as well as when it is at rest. This is a very
crucial point, particularly as it relates to piano actions.
Trying to Kaleidoscope a very great deal into a very small space, and,
therefore, even more prone to error than normal - Pianos were/are designed
to be able to "drive" a given volume of space - in very basic terms, this
means to be able to produce a musically acceptable and usable quality and
quantity of sound. For whatever combination of reasons (they aren't
germane to this discussion), the "optimum" piano size landed in the roughly
9 foot range. A piano of this size requires a hammer of a certain mass in
order to be able meet those requirements. A hammer that is too massive
(and/or, too hard) will overdrive the tone-production/transduction system
(strings, bridges, soundboard, etc.) of the instrument and produce the
splatty, attack-heavy, thin kind of non-carrying tone which everyone loves
to hate. A piano that has insufficient mass (and/or is too hard), will
produce much the same result, on a smaller, and, therefore, sometimes less
egregiously annoying level.
Further, the hammer that is too massive will also overload the lever system
of the action, and require too much countering weight to produce an
acceptable "down" weight, often achieved at the expense of repetition (more
on this in a bit).
So, bearing in mind that this "new" action was developed when folks were
still vitally concerned with sound as an identifying sales feature (as well
as something which was musically desirable), the instruments went through
most, if not all, of the factory voicing procedure before the final
addition/deletion of weights was made. Thus, especially on the larger
instruments, the key actually would follow the finger, (virtually) without
regard for speed. (As a point of reference, in those days, voicers were
only allowed to complete 3 instruments per week.)
"Later" accelerated.
OK, well, a good thing never really lasts, so - things changed. Well,
actually, a very great number of things changed. For the present
discussion, the change of interest is the one which moved the action from
being bushed with traditional felt to the early Teflon bushings. It no
longer matters whether or not this was a good idea. I have long since
stopped worrying about trying to teach people how to work on these
bushings, and simply go with the flow that dictates replacing everything in
sight. This is much easier now that there are, from various manufacturers,
competently made parts with which one can do a proper job. Please, if you
do this, take the time to do the underlever tray as well. There is no point
in doing this much work and leaving out so vital a component.
All other problems aside, the (roughly) 25 years of production of the older
style Teflon action ruined the view of the accelerated action for most
players and most technicians. 25 years is 5 years longer than the
generally accepted generational demark, and the time period coincided with
so many other changes in the industry that a simply vast amount of
technical knowledge and experience was lost through death and retirement
before most of the folks who are now RPTs bought tools. No offense
intended, but I think that this is supportable. The main reasons that this
period of construction was so devastating for the accelerated action rest
largely on the arrogance and stupidity of S&S management.
Looking strictly to the production of the action itself, in the face of the
knowledge that, in order to avoid (to at least a minimum degree) in all
climates the "clicking" for which these actions were, from the first so
notorious, the centers had to be pinned too tightly. These changes
unhappily coincided with changes in hammer making which resulted in the
base (NOT bass) hammer being much larger (and softer) than at any time
previous. Remember, from supra, (remember Albericht? NO, NO, that's
another lecture...) one of the results of a more massive (read: "larger")
hammer - particularly once it is hardened sufficiently to produce "tone"?
An (at times great) increase in the amount of mass required to balance it,
right? Addition of more and more lead to the keys is precisely what
occurred. And, it occurred for many, many years. It was not at all
unusual to find Ds with down weights, from the factory, in excess of 70-75
gms., with smaller models suffering in relative proportion. Many of the
(relatively) early replacement parts were not much better - smaller, but
very heavy, very hard hammers; parts which did (and, in some cases do
still) outweigh the originals by several grams; plated center pins with
plating which simply flaked off, sometimes; a veritable plethora of
unusable, but expensive, fancy-looking tools which often only made matters
worse; etc.
Everybody, including S&S, hated the situation and experimented with every
possible "fix". Some were more responsible and effective than others.
Mostly, a very great deal of hard work, thought, and, often, "reverse
engineering" was applied by all concerned - by and large with light to
moderately acceptable results - yours truly included.
For those of us who were in a position of doing (a lot of) warranty work,
there was work, but it was pure hell. The best chance one had was to find
an action which had not been previously "improved", and in which the
factory and the dealer/owner was willing to invest a fair amount of money.
Then, one could begin the slow and painful task of really shaping the
hammers, then repinning the action (often completely), then regulating,
then, if you were really fortunate, you could pull out some of the weights,
and get something that at least felt like a piano. Oh, yes, and if you had
to do some needle work? More repinning.
Why not just use other parts - hmm. I used to think that I had a good
answer. At the time, it was the right thing for me to do. In retrospect,
it is rather like trying to describe the 60's, or riding a Harley. I have
no excuse or explanation which is currently valid, and, as a rule, use
parts which require less work.
The period of roughly 1981-1984/5 saw the introduction of Teflon II.
Different process. Similar problems. Same results.
Still later accelerated.
Sometime around 1984/1985, Lloyd Meyer (S&S President at the time), in a
valiant attempt to shortcircuit some of the production problems plaguing
the company, introduced Renner parts (yes, to Hamburg/Renner dimensions) in
the Ds and Bs.
At (roughly) the same time, production also changed from the remnants of
Pratt-Read for keys and keyframes to Kluge, and with that change, the last
bit of what had constituted the real "accelerated" action was the
half-round fulcrum at the balance rail was retained, while the long
established weighting system was dropped. The more traditional (read:
"pre-accelerated") weighting method was reintroduced. Hopefully, most
folks are familiar enough with current production to obviate all but a few
observations.
First, while I am not generally given to grand-standing, I think that Lloyd
has played an extremely important, if largely unsung role in the history of
our profession. He is a businessman, and, like ourselves is in business to
make a profit. He is also a person who has consistently worked to make
sure that we get the tools, parts, instruction and support that we need in
order to provide top quality, professional service to our clients.
Second, a word (oh, well, maybe two), about action parts geometry. So much
nonsense has been written about this that, on the one hand, I really hate
to say a thing. On the other, it seems reasonable and appropriate to point
out something that seems to me to so often go unseen or ignored. This
point is not original to me, having been made in numerous other places by
folks like Chris Robinson - It is that, many of what have come to be seen
as "design" changes in S&S action geometry are attributable to nothing more
nor less than normal and predictable (and, therefore, avoidable) changes
resulting from the wear and tear of use. Have there been other changes?
Of course. Are they (realistically) documented somewhere in (hopefully
usable) form? Not really. Will they be? Be serious.
So, what is a serious response? In my view, each instrument on which one
works has to be approached, each time, as if one has never seen it before.
(My personal neuroses are the subject of another discussion.) The reason
that I came to adopt that view, however, is relevant; particularly as a
field technician doing warranty work, you simply never know who has done
what when to a specific instrument before, or, for that matter, between
times when you see it. In some cases, certainly, you can develop a sense
of what is going on. This can never, however, replace a certain amount of
reductive analysis. Analysis of this type is particularly important when
dealing with action geometry.
So, what to do. Make up a kit of relevant parts from what seem to be
differing actions. In my case, I have whips, shanks, flanges, and hammers
from pretty much each decade (since 1900) of production, in addition to new
parts from appropriate vendors (including S&S). I also have made xeroxes
of the parts themselves, with relevant measurements clearly indicated. See
what works. When I compare, in the shop, the relative mass of various
parts, I use an old-fashioned triple-beam balance. It is accurate within
0.1 gms.
This isn't rocket science. If the whippen on the instrument out weighs an
original part by 2 or 3 gms.... Some new parts have the drilling for the
center pin not square in the yoke. What effect will that have on the
touch? (Richard Davenport's outstanding "What If?" class is highly
recommended.)
The point here, is don't just arbitrarily start yanking out lead. Think
about it - then arbitrarily yank it out anyway, just like an old-fashioned
lynching.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++
Then, back to the posts leading up to the one above.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++
Gregory, Greg and List,
Please excuse this sort of hodge-podge approach, but I really wanted to
properly include and credit Del, Newton and others, whose posts have some
very good observations. So, I have copied their responses (to pianotech,
where you can follow that thread, if you wish) and pushed in some thoughts
and observations of my own. These latter are set off from the original
postings by lines of "+++++".
In general, I find that there is a very great degree of misinformation
about this whole "weighty" (sorry) issue. The perplexing problem first
brought by Greg, and then as I have brought in a couple of other things
speak more to a manufacturer's towering ego than to a desire to have a
specific kind of instrument properly serviced. Also, this is long, and I
(even for myself) get long winded, so please do take the time to read
through the whole mess, and accept my thanks in advance.
With that caveat, and donning my Conrad Hoffsommer Model V Flame Suit, here
goes:
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 11:44:27 -0700
From: Delwin D Fandrich <pianobuilders@olynet.com>
Organization: PianoBuilders/NW
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Subject: Re: S&S retrofit rails ?
Sender: owner-pianotech@ptg.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org
Dale R. Fox wrote:
It is not a terribly difficult task to fit a full Renner stack onto a S&S
keyframe. Those wonderful laminated beech rails make it worth the effort.
-- ddf
But Del,
Then it wouldn't be a Steinway!!!!! ( I know, it would be better.)
I've been informed it's a mortal sin to mess with the mystique thing. I
know cause the local official S&S service guy has told everyone who will
listen that I ruined a couple at the local museum by putting those S&S
style Renner replacements on their A and B. Worse, I put Abel hammers on
to replace the Japanese rocks previously installed. And I didn't use
genuine Steinway key bushing cloth to boot. I'm a bad boy. By the way,
the people playing concerts on both have nothing but nice to say about both
pianos. Too bad I ruined them, huh?
Watch out for the slings and arrows of righteous indignation, oh you who
would suggest fooling with the "MYSTIQUE". Flames anyone?
Dale
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(hg:)
For more years than most can remember S&S has steadfastly refused to allow
any local technician to advertise themselves as "official". Ask Randy
Potter what happened when he advertised having "studied" with Franz. For
anyone who cares, a competent job done by a competent technician will use
the best reasonably available cost-effective parts, without regard to who
made them.
As Del notes, infra, contemporary pianists (not necessarily meaning those
who perform contemporary music) are "increasingly interested" in how the
piano plays and sounds. Sound, and the way in which it can be manipulated
by the performer, are once again coming to be of some interest to pianists.
(Sorry, and contrite apologies to pianists here - way too many years
dealing with "I see blue, I see green" from folks who shouldn't have been
allowed to own sheet music, let alone perform in public, let alone perform
in public for money.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(ddf, continued:)
Dale, et al,
I've been dealing with this problem for some time now. However, over the
past few years I've noticed a distinct change in the attitude of many piano
playing folks. They are becoming increasingly interested in how the piano
plays and sounds. The label on front still means something, of course, but
not nearly as much as it once did. We actively encourage comparison shopping.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(hg)
I completely concur. I think that this kind of comparison is the best, if
not only, way to reinterest folks in the incredible variety of piano tone
available ... to the educated ear.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(ddf)
No progress at all has been made with those who simply play around with
pianos.
Regards,
Del
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(hg)
One of the great things about these lists is the ability of each of us to
make public fools of ourselves. We are all curators in a museum. In the
best of all possible worlds, we would each contribute what we can, and
learn from each other, as no one individual can possibly hope to encompass
relearning all of the knowledge which has been lost through history.
What annoys me, and perhaps others, are those who forget this kind of frame
of reference. "Playing" with pianos is all well and good, but is
appropriately limited to those instruments which one owns, or can otherwise
afford to render unusable - in the tremendously unlikely event of
catastrophe, of course...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(Back to Del)
PS Are those two pianos -- the A and the B -- the same ones that our
mutual friend "improved" by "correctly" mounting the plate?
(For those who don't know the background: A "rebuilder" in Sacramento was
spreading the word about how "poorly" modern Steinways were being built. In
fact, Steinway production workers had gotten so sloppy that they were no
longer cutting the dowels off that were used to hold their soundboards in.
In his shop, of course, they always made sure that those dowels were
trimmed flush with the surface of the soundboard. Made for some
interesting sounding pianos.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(hg)
Ah, yes - this raises it's head every so often. For my money, this is
right up there with the folks who claim to be able to "recrown"
soundboards. Del can explain the "why" of "this doesn't work" much better
than I can. Sells a lot of schlock work. Personally, I am just waiting
for a bunch of boards "repaired" in this manner to implode at a well-known
music school.
OK, moving right along, there are a couple of other areas of recent concern:
First:
Greg Newell wrote:
Dear Liszt,
I just ran across a real puzzler for me. If you feel so inclined I would
greatly appreciate your advice.
I began today to regulate the action of an S&S "B". I began as we all do
with an inspection/evaluation of all parts and found, much to my dismay
that key leads had been removed in over half the keys. In all cases the
lead removed was the one closest to the balance rail. When these leads
were removed the holes were not plugged but rather left open. My feeling
is that I must , at the very least, plug the holes with suitable wood. I
am however unsure now as to what else I may run in to with this action.
What I thought was going to be a simple regulation now may turn out to be
much more.
If you were to run in to this kind of situation, and I'm sure that someone
has, what else would you look for and how would YOU proceed? This job has
already been quoted , etc., etc., and I feel that I could go ahead and
charge extra within the proposal for plugging but reweighing, (something
I've not done before), couldn't be worked in to a nominal increase over the
original estimate. Have you any idea why someone would elect to remove
leads and not plug the holes? Can I assume that these leads were removed
for a legitimate reason or should I take the position now of not trusting
anything and proceed from a point of "all bets are off" and strike a new
deal with the group paying for this work? Am I being too paranoid?
perplexed in Ohio
Greg Newell
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OK, this is the original location of the bit now at the head of this post.
What follows are the posts and comments from others relevant to weight
removal, etc.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Greg Torres:
At 11:52 PM 9/7/1998 -0700, Greg wrote:
Dear perplexed,
My thoughts on possible reasons as to why the weights were removed...
1. Someone wanted a heavier touch at some point...
2. Someone’s solution to a sluggish action-possibly from verdigris or tight
flanges...(I ran into one technician's solution to a bad verdigris problem
on a Steinway M recently...little tiny round fishing weights crimped and
glued with clear hot-melt craft glue onto all the shanks where they enter
the hammer molding...)
3. Previous tech removed them because they were swelling, or maybe just
perhaps just an idiot...(the tech, not the weights! ;-)
If it were me I would try to find out more history on this piano. Then I
would not proceed until the customer knows what you know now. If they want
to go ahead with it as is (i.e. plugging) then a big disclaimer would
apply. Good luck.
Best,
Greg Torres
(hg:)
While I really do agree with Greg, a caveat to the technician seems in
order. Most clients simply haven't got the faintest clue about what is
really going on in their instrument. While a certain amount of education
is desirable and necessary, asking what a customer wants can lead to all
sorts of difficulty.
(Note: If they are still available from Yamaha, there are clip on weights
which will increase touch weight enough to allow some comparison before
doing anything permanent or irreversible.)
Then:
Newton wrote:
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Subject: Re: perplexing problem
Hello Greg,
There is no reason, other than esthetics, to plug the holes. If you have a
5/8" plug cutter and get some appropriate wood you will have to enlarge the
hole slightly and glue in the plug with the grain following the grain of
the old wood. New wood or improperly season wood can have
a different rate of expansion and shrinkage which needs to be taken into
account.
Check the touch weight after the regulation is complete. Take upweight and
downweight and average the two. You should have a number around 36 to 40
grams. Insert a weight if the Balance Weight is higher than 40 and remove
another weight if it is lover than 36 grams.
Look at the articles by David Stanwood, but understand that I have
reweighed several actions and I have it down to a system it still takes me
eight hours to reweigh an action.
Starting to insert weights near the balance point of the key is the
accelerated action modification. Any physics major will tell you that this
favorably changes the 'moment of inertia' which makes repetition a little
faster. When I reweigh an action I remove the first weight near the front
of the key and reinsert a portion of the original weight to get the balance
weight where I want it, but I also take into account the friction of each
note as well.
If the customer is not complaining, the action feels good and is within
some semblance of tolerances then leave well enough alone.
Newton
nhunt@jagat.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(hg)
As usual, Newton has things readily to hand.
The issue of differences in rates of expansion/contraction is a real one.
Final touch-weight really should be done after all but the very, very,
last, ever regulation and voicing is done. I tend to shape the hammers
first, then to go through the pinning, then the regulation several times,
each time refining things a bit.
I like David Stanwood's work, but think that it may not be reasonable to
try to apply it in all circumstances. Maintaining real performance
instruments is rather like owning Ferraris, you just about have to have a
live in mechanic/technician. As a technician working on performance
instruments, you have a variety of responsibilities, not the least of which
is to not make yourself crazy. The best way to accomplish that is to try to
work out what is the optimum reasonable level of maintenance for a given
instrument. If everything is at the edge all the time - plan on trouble.
Newton says it well - "if the customer is not complaining,..." etc.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then:
Del wrote:
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Subject: Re: perplexing problem
Greg Newell wrote:
. . . .
I began today to regulate the action of an S&S "B". I began as we all do
with an inspection/evaluation of all parts and found, much to my dismay
that key leads had been removed in over half the keys. In all cases the
lead removed was the one closest to the balance rail.
This is not all that uncommon. It is a particular problem with actions
that are "individually weighed-off" at the factory. It is very common with
these actions for them to be weighed off with more leads than are necessary
-- or desirable -- to compensate for excessive action center friction. As
the action wends its way through the production process most, or at least
some, of this friction is reduced leaving the action feeling excessively
light. So, leads are removed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(hg)
I find this removal of leads more common with the post-84/5 production than
with the period immediately preceding it. Certainly, with the range and
domain of changes which have been made to the now-generic S&S action over
the last ten or twelve years (more than in the preceding nearly 100 years),
one has to be much more careful.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(ddf)
When these leads were removed the holes were not plugged but rather left open.
>From a structural point of view, they don't need to be. They are located
fairly close to the neutral axis of a center-supported, end-loaded beam.
They are pretty ugly, of course.
My feeling is that I must, at the very least, plug the holes with suitable
wood. I am however unsure now as to what else I may run in to with this
action. What I thought was going to be a simple regulation now may turn
out to be much more.
If you want it to be. I'd go ahead and regulate the action completely and
then check key weight. You might find it to be still a bit light. It
might be too heavy. It might be just right. You won't really know until
the regulation is complete. Once you know what you're up against, then it
is time to tackle the key leading question.
If you were to run in to this kind of situation, and I'm sure that someone
has, what else would you look for and how would YOU proceed? This job has
already been quoted , etc., etc., and I feel that I could go ahead and
charge extra within the proposal for plugging but reweighing, (something
I've not done before), couldn't be worked in to a nominal increase over the
original estimate.
It's not likely that you'll have to do a complete re-weighing of the entire
action. Time for a certain amount of this should have been included in
your estimate anyway.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(hg)
Doing this kind of work always takes about double what you think it
"should". Plan accordingly.
I do think, going a little farther than Del does here, that it is unusual
to have to completely reweigh an action. If you are dealing with an
earlier instrument, and really want to do the work, you can check the
underside of each key for small indentations which will/should be visible
under some/most of the leads closest to the balance rail. Remove the leads
which have no corresponding marks (which was put into the key by the jig
used to set up the initial weighting), do you action work, then go through
the weigh off process as noted by Newton (and others). It is a good deal
of work.
Newton's 8 hours is about right for doing it after you have done it enough
to get a good rhythm for it. In most cases, if your work is reasonable and
careful, and, if you have used good parts, while you will certainly have to
make some changes, they probably will not be catastrophic.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(ddf)
If the empty holes bother you, contact the customer and explain the
problem. It's not a difficult task to plug these holes. You will need
some sugar pine or spruce -- the precise species is not critical, just
don't use something like maple -- and a plug cutter of the proper diameter.
(Use plugs, not dowels.) Cut your plugs and glue them in, paying attention
to the grain orientation of the plug, of course. You can use most any
glue. Hot animal hide glue is quick and easy if you have a glue-pot handy.
Garrett-Wade's gap filling glue is better at filling the inevitable gaps,
but, again, this is not a structural repair. Epoxy is acceptable and will
certainly work, but it is excessively messy and probably overkill for this
job.
Have you any idea why someone would elect to remove leads and not plug the
holes?
See the above.
Can I assume that these leads were removed for a legitimate reason or
should I take the position now of not trusting anything and proceed from a
point of "all bets are off" and strike a new deal with the group paying for
this work? Am I being too paranoid?
perplexed in Ohio
Greg Newell
Probably. But there are those who are out to get even the paranoid folks,
sometimes. In any case, wait until you have the rest of the work done and
then decide.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(hg)
What Del does not offer is the old bromide about how, even if you are
paranoid, it doesn't mean that "they" aren't out to get you.
Personally, I find that the fewer assumptions I make about a given
situation, the less likely I am to get into trouble. Before replacing S&S
actions became such a rage, and so much of that kind of work was being so
very poorly done, I used to try to figure out what had been done at the
factory and why. I think that it is still possible to do this very
productively with earlier, which is to say, pre-85 instruments (although,
one has to be increasingly careful after 1956). For instruments which have
already been improved in one way or another, it is a very good guess,
depending on who redesigned how much.
As a (sort of) final note in re: the thread about S&S action rails. It
seems to me to be a little bit too dilettante to offer some of the
criticism that has been thrown around on this subject. At the time these
rails were introduced, they were the most solid, stable combination of
materials and manufacture available. That the concept and/or system has
been superseded by other, perhaps more recent, innovations proves only that
things, including pianos evolve and change, and that this change is,
sometimes, for the better. These rails are unnecessarily difficult to
repair and/or replace. Further, the ones sold as "replacements", often are
more trouble to work with than simply drilling new ones one's self. This
is particularly true if one tries to replace an entire stack.
OK, folks, that's it for this installment. And, Ralph, I don't want to hear
from you about lack of contributions to this list.
I do apologize for the length. I do not often get a block of time that I
can just sit and think about piano stuff these days, so have gotten a bit
carried away. Ditto for inadvertently stepping on any toes out there.
That is certainly not my intent.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then, Ron posted the following on the 17th:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At 05:49 PM 9/17/1998 -0400, you wrote:
>I've done a little bit of experimenting with capstan location using a gig
>similar to the one Del described. (See below for a description.) The
>results are interesting.
>
>NOTE: This is another B [#352489] that has the same leverage problem.
>Renner wips and shanks, NY hammers, Pratt-Read keyboard, "accelerated
>action" (read "lotsa lead!"). Essentially, the same keyboard as the one I
>mentioned before, only this one has Renner parts. The key bushing are new
>and eased correctly. The centers on the shanks and wips are loose --
>probably will be re-pinned because they're outside of "shop tolerance."
>The piano was restrung this summer, oversized pins, original pinblock.
>Given that small amount of background....
>
>I removed capstans at No.s 1, 20, 21, 37, 51, 68 & 88, but because I had a
>short amount of time to work with, I only managed to get through the first
>five. On #1, the original capstan location downweight was 64, up was 36. I
>moved the capstan location 1/8" toward the balance rail and got 60 down,
>34 up. Not bad, but not close enough to ideal for me. Note #20, moved
>1/8" only got me to 59 and 31. Note #21 was a distaster. Had to move the
>capstan 1/4" and that *only* got me down to 59 and 30. Note #37 went down
>to 60 and 38 with 1/8" movement. And note #51 only got to 53 and 28 at
>1/8".
>
>Can't move capstans any more than 3/16" without the capstan contacting
>wood. 1/8" would be fine, except it means drilling out the capstan holes
>*oversized*, plugging and redrilling. If I didn't oversize the old holes,
>drilling new ones would be straddling old and new wood. If I used pine
>plugs (not dowels....plugs cut from scrapped keyboards), I *may* be able
>to get away with "normal" sized plugs, but there's still a glue joint to
>deal with. (Have I started splitting hairs yet?)
>
>I'm contemplating the option of a combination of things; move the capstans
>no more than 3/16" *and* swap small keyleads for medium or large ones. The
>net result would be a lighter touch (improved leverage), but a slightly
>heavier keyboard (on the order of 150-200grams or 5-7 lbs, overall, is a
>guess).
>
>The other option is to install those "turbo" wippens from Renner. I tried
>a few of those and they're pretty slick. The manhours involved with
>re-pinning and regulating those wippens would be about the same as the
>current wippens (I don't think that stuff has been done yet).
Based on work in which Tom Winter and I are actively involved, I think I'd
suggest a slightly
different approach.
While moving the capstans is certainly in order on many of these actions,
my consistent experience, particularly with instruments in which the action
parts have been replaced with Renner/Tokiwa/etc, is that there is simply
too much mass in the parts themselves, and that this, coupled with hammers
that are also too large, and any potential deficiences in action geometry,
are more likely to cause problems than the capstans. This is not to say
that the capstans should not get moved, just that it's a whole lot of work,
compared to other things that can often leave (essentially) the same result.
More later.
Best.
Horace
Horace Greeley, CNA, MCP, RPT
Systems Analyst/Engineer
Controller's Office
Stanford University
email: hgreeley@leland.stanford.edu
voice mail: 650.725.9062
fax: 650.725.8014
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC