Steinway regulation

[Fred Sturm]

Jeff,
	It might be that your best approach at this point would be to tell the
pianist that the repetition problems and slapping sound are something
he'll have to live with if you are to achieve the touch he likes
(assuming he likes the touch again, after what you re-did to it). This
might be a way to approach compromise between what he thinks he wants
and what you perceive to be a well-functioning action. In situations
like this, a glib tongue can often be worth more than an analytic mind
and endless experience.
	That said, I am still puzzled as to how the jack could slap the
hammerflange. This would occur in the aftertouch cycle - well after
letoff. Can you find a note on which this occurs consistently? Does it
go away if you reduce dip? Outside the action cavity, can you make it
happen with the flange/shank/hammer removed? Is there adequate stop felt
in the rep window? If you add a bit, does the problem disappear? 
	Whatever the source, I can not imagine a scenario where initial capstan
height would have an effect per se. Ie, it doesn't matter (for this
purpose) where it started, only where it ended up.
	Working with individuals to meet their needs/desires is always quite a
challenge. It's best when they are private clients, and actually have to
pay for your time. Usually the expense will lead to compromise and
limits. In the university situation, our time doesn't cost them
anything, so we have to set the limits. It doesn't hurt to be humble,
and admit lack of skill to achieve what the pianist wants in some
circumstances.

Best of luck in dealing with a very sticky situation.
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
Jeff Stickney wrote:
> 
> List,
>         Thank you for your continued discussion of this issue.  When I changed the
> regulation to a deeper dip and longer blow (yes, 1 7/8"), I also put
> let-off closer than where it had been.  I also like let-off to be as close
> as possible, but in my efforts to get the piano back to it's original
> "inviting" state, I also undid the close let-off ("generous" might be the
> wrong word, but definitely more than 1/16")so that adequate after-touch
> could be achieved without cranking the capstans even higher.  I don't think
> at this point the aftertouch is excessive, merely what was necessary to
> make the pianist happy.  I would invite your ideas of what an acceptable
> range of after-touch is - .045-.060?  I believe what attracted the pianist
> to this piano (and the way it had been regulated) was "some form of
> finesse" (another way of saying "inviting") more than other considerations.
>  I went into this knowing that I was trying to fix something that wasn't
> broken - a learning experience it has definitely turned out to be.
>