Baldwin Action Problem

[Mark Cramer]

Ed,

a couple years ago I (or rather my faithful assistant; Jeremy) had some rep.
screw gringing to do.

It was a D, and when I calculated correct bore length for the new mallets
(3mm longer than their predeceasors), I ended up with an action that would
not install.  :>)

i.e.: the hammers when pressed against the rebound cushions would not
squeeze beneath the stretcher.

(BTW, this is one of my favourites, I may have shared it before)

Now wouldn't an expert have seen this one coming!  HMMMMM?

Anyhow, I knew I was being a flagrant scofflaw in violating the original
specs, however precise measurements dicated, confirmed and re-confirmed
correct bore-length, and the former mallets weren't it!

After some thought (even the least technically gifted would agree; an action
belongs "inside" the piano) I peeled a layer or two off the rebound cushions
to get things going.

I was able to regulate out at about 46mm (if I recall) with the bass hammers
ducking gently beneath the stretcher. I ended up peeling the cushions fairly
modestly, as the hammerline on this piano gets fussed over regularily.

Rather than grind the 'tops' off the screws, I had J. remove them, take 3mm
off the "pointy" end (they were x-s-ively long) and regrind the end to a
point. Sorry I don't recall how long this took, but it was well within the
1/2 day anyhow. Some sizing (glue/water) had to be added to the hole, for a
tight like new fit.

I can see your idea of grinding the tops for time-saving Ed though, if there
is enough head there for future adjustment.

Mark Cramer,
Brandon University


-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org]On Behalf Of Ed
Sutton
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 8:41 AM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: Baldwin Action Problem


Jeff-
Sounds familiar.
I just called and arranged to pull the action and have it on the bench for 2
days.
I'll let you know how it turns out.  If needed, I might even grind a mm off
the tops of those darned rep. lever screws.
An action ought to give us a range of choices for all those touch
parameters...in my dreams....;)
Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Tanner" <jtanner@mozart.sc.edu>
To: "College and University Technicians" <caut@ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Baldwin Action Problem


> Hi Ed,
> I've noticed that all our Baldwin L's exhibit the same problem.  I believe
> they are all 1994, though the school acquired them in '95.  Baldwin
> actions.  I haven't noticed it as much on our SF-10s with Renner actions,
> but that's not to say it isn't present.  Baldwin's recommended dip,
> according to the service manual, is between .400 (±.007) and .415 (there
is
> a discrepancy in the manual -- the chart shows .400, but under the DEPTH
OF
> TOUCH instructions, it states .415), and hammer blow is 1-7/8".  But I
> can't lower the hammer rest rail low enough to get that blow distance, and
> the rest rail certainly can't be set at 1/8" below the hammershanks.  The
> rest rail at it's lowest point will block movement of the wippens and will
> click against the wippen flanges when the hammers return.  Some
> hammershanks click on the repitition lever adjustment screw.  I wind up
> with excessive aftertouch.  I've had some success with decreasing dip
using
> my Steinway .390 dip block, but aftertouch is still a little more
excessive
> than I like -- you can't set drop at 1/16" without the hammer rising above
> the letoff point and blocking at the bottom of the keystroke.
>
> It is particularly more problematic with too little friction in the
> hammershank pinning.
>
> Also, the front rail punchings are pretty spongy, and that doesn't help
> matters any.
>
> I wondered if anyone else experienced this, and now I know.
> Jeff
>
> >    I've just been puzzling over a 1980's  SF-10. It is a very good
> >sounding Baldwin, made in the  Conway factory. BUT, there is an action
> >problem. When dip is set to a standard block (Steinway),  there is very
> >excessive aftertouch. The owner says it has always been like  this. When
I
> >lower the capstans to decrease aftertouch,  the shanks knock on the
> >repetition lever regulating screw. The only choice is excessive
aftertouch
> >or shallow  dip.  The prof. does a lot of performing, so he wants
> >standard keydip on his practice instrument. Something is wrong with this
> >instrument.   Possibly the string height is low, and they let it go? I
> >could shorten the hammer bore distance...or just  file down the hammers?
> >Is there some regulation, shimming or rail  adjustment I'm missing? Thank
> >you. Ed Sutton
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>

_______________________________________________
caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives