Well, hammer return spring strength affects the repetition adversely if it is too strong (or absent all together), but I'm unclear as to why the design is superior to the spring rail type. Maybe there is more of a gradient strength there, where the closer the hammer gets to the string, the stronger the spring gets, but as it falls back, the weaker its effect becomes. The spring rail type does that too, but maybe with less of a spring strength gradient. The jack stop rail will stop the jack's movement away from the buttt so there is less wasted motion and it can get back under the buttt quicker, theoretically anyway. >Vince wrote: >>Good question, Jeff. I have heard that it was a superior design from >>past PTG classes and such. I'm sure you know some of the theoretical >>reasons, which have to do with improved repetition, but I wonder how >>much is transferable to real time. > >Only 2 advantages I can think of is that it would eliminate squeaking from >the butt springs. But you've still got damper springs to squeak, so what's >the difference? The other would be that they might make it a bit less >cumbersome to access damper lever wires with the bending tool. > >Haven't studied it, but it doesn't seem to me that that reverse lever >design could produce any stronger hammer return than the old spring rail >springs. Especially if there's any tightness in the flange bushing >whatsoever. And they're aggravating as all get out to add tension to. And >if the spring breaks, don't you have to just about replace the whole butt? >Jeff > > >_______________________________________________ >caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives -- Vince Mrykalo RPT MPT Senior Piano Technician Crane School of Music
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC