Steinway "pinning" dilemma

[Jim Busby]

Thanks Fred,

I've been out of state for a week.

Several excellent techs have told me that Steinway does it the way they
do to "cover a flaw in the design", i.e. in order to get more power they
hang a heavy hammer, and in order to compensate for the heavy hammers
they have to reduce friction to make proper touchweight specs. 

After spending the day with Eric I'm not totally a proponent of their
way, but I'm definitely more open to it. I agree that if that's how they
do it I should at least look into it...

BTW, maybe my readings were not as accurate because of how fast I ran
through everything. Just trying to get a feel for things there. But if I
increased 5+ grams in the hammer flange doesn't that multiply for DW?

Jim 

-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Fred Sturm
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:37 AM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: RE: Steinway "pinning" dilemma

Hi Jim,
	I share your bafflement. I have heard the same things from
various 
Steinway techs - "as long as it's firm, friction doesn't matter." I
agree 
with Jeff, Ed, Horace and others. In my experience, friction does
matter, 
and I want 4 to 8 grams in my shank centers (paying attention to ambiant

humidity at the time). I do a lot of top action repinning as a matter of

standard up-keep. Typically every year or two for a performance
instrument. 
I find this makes a big difference to sound production, responsiveness, 
control, nuance, function (helps a lot in the checking versus rep spring

strength balancing act). So I am puzzled when I hear the opposite view
from 
techs I respect.
	My sense is this is possibly a matter of tail wagging dog. When
teflon was 
abandoned, instead of going back to regular old felt, Steinway went to
this 
felt impregnated with Emralon, Permalon, or whatever it is exactly. I
have 
the feeling this was partly a production driven innovation (aimed at
more 
consistency with less labor), with the idea that it would also lead to 
improvement in function. With this impregnation, the felt can be more 
variable in density and fit, and the "plastic substance" makes the
bushing 
longer lasting and less liable to humidity fluctuation. It is also
readily 
soluble, so you just dose with methanol to free or (at least sometimes) 
firm up the center. And there is the shock absorbing attribute of felt
as 
an improvement over the teflon.
	All sounds great in theory. But in practice it becomes difficult
to 
impossible to come up with free movement plus standard parameters of 
friction under production conditions. Regular felt bushings are fit to 
standards by controlling density and thickness of the felt used, and
then 
by applying an appropriate shrinking formula after pinning. Shrinking 
formulas don't work with felt impregnated with "plastic substance." The 
felt is no longer controllable, except by reaming, which is too 
labor-intensive for factory application. So they have to make sure the
felt 
is thin (or lacking density) enough to be free, and fill in the gaps
with 
the plastic. Meaning there is no possibility for achieving what most of
us 
agree is optimum friction parameters. Though they _can_ achieve good 
firmness with low friction consistently.
	Result being that, decisions having been made and production
facilities 
long since adapted, they try to make the best of it. At least that's how
I 
read it.
	I'd be very interested to hear what Eric has to say. As it
happens, I'm 
heading to NYC for a week long seminar the end of October, and this
whole 
question was high on my list of things to query. Eric says he won't be 
there (he'll be on the competition circuit somewhere), so I'll ask Kent
and 
whoever else is available and see what they have to say. This question
is 
similar to the whole hammer treatment issue (especially Ron Coners
saying 
the only part of the hammer that matters is the crown, and limiting what
is 
done to 3:1 lacquer and single needles deep into the crown, along with 
occasional application of keytop). I hear what they are saying, and 
hesitate to reject it outright, but I just can't seem to digest it.
Doesn't 
compute. Doesn't fit with my experience. On the other hand, the C & A 
department in NYC is dealing with, and satisfying, the cream of the
cream 
pianists, day after day, year after year. Who am I to argue? It's a 
quandary.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico

--On Saturday, September 27, 2003 7:43 PM -0600 Jim Busby 
<jim_busby@byu.edu> wrote:

>
>
> David,
>
>
>
> You may be right about the capstans and knuckles, but once again it
means
> changing a new instrument x 8. Eric Schandall is coming out next week
and
> I'll push him hard on this. Let's see what he says. I was told by "a
> competitor" that concert artists will never like them as is, but if
this
> is what Steinway C & A is doing I can't really buy that either.
>
>
>
> As far as side play goes they really do seem tight. (no excess
sideplay)
> But the things swing all day long! If this indeed works, then all the
PTG
> literature, articles, etc. about friction are in question. Or maybe
there
> really are two types of pianos; S & S, and everyone else.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim Busby
>

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