Steinway "pinning" dilemma

[Alan McCoy]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Jim,

I am glad to hear of your positive experience with Eric. That is always
welcome. When they recommend 1-4 g friction, that is a large range, so I
assume that that means ~4 grams in the bass tapering to ~1g in the treble.
How does this translate into the swing test for your pianos in question? 10
swings?

I like RicB's comment  "I prefer to deal with hammer weight from a leverage
standpoint." So S&S has decided to use a heavier hammer and make touchweight
specs through reduced friction. Did you ask Eric why they would choose to
use friction instead of leverage to get touchweight to the range they
prefer? I don't mean to be presumptuous here, it just seems a curious
decision when, as a manufacturer, they have ultimate control over that.

Alan McCoy


  -----Original Message-----
  From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org]On Behalf Of
Richard Brekne
  Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 2:52 AM
  To: College and University Technicians
  Subject: Re: Steinway "pinning" dilemma


  Hi Jim
  Jim Busby wrote:

    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.


  Never mind what some techs say about manufacturers doing things wrong... I
mean take it for edification, but realize that a great deal of such talk is
simply (for various individual reasons). This idea of Steinways is a perfect
example the way its coming out. There is nothing inherently wrong with using
heavy hammers and their use in no way represents a flaw. It DOES present
some problems that need to be addressed for an action to be playable. There
will be some yings and some yangs...as there is with any solution.

  This particular way of dealing with heavy hammers is a new one to me...
Hamburg shanks and preglued hammers come in  with 5 to 9 swings... or in
their way of doing things... tapping the horizontally held shankk will see
the flange stay level... if it rises there is too much friction, if it falls
there is too little.

  My own preference is to insure 4 - 7 swings. This insures enough firmness
and at the same time allows enough freedom of movement. I prefer to deal
with hammer weight from a leverage standpoint.

  That being said.... if Steinway can insure enough firmness to the shank
center/bushing with so little friction... then there is no real problem in
doing so.


    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...

  Sounds reasonable to me. Tho like you, my initial reaction is ....
"strange" :)

    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?

  Never figured it out. I suppose it depends on how you handle friction in
any formula based thing.  Why not just do a couple "before and after"
scenarios and see.


    Jim




  Cheers
  RicB

  --
  Richard Brekne
  RPT, N.P.T.F.
  UiB, Bergen, Norway
  mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
  http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
  http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/85/71/7d/90/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--