Steinway "pinning" dilemma

[Jim Busby]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Hi Alan,
=20
Ditto what Mark Said. Eric doesn't use swing tests at all.
=20
Jim
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Alan McCoy
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:42 AM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: RE: Steinway "pinning" dilemma
=20
Jim,
=20
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?=20
=20
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.=20
=20
Alan McCoy
=20
=20
	-----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=20
	Jim Busby wrote:=20
		Thanks Fred,=20
		I've been out of state for a week.=20
		Several excellent techs have told me that Steinway does
it the way they=20
		do to "cover a flaw in the design", i.e. in order to get
more power they=20
		hang a heavy hammer, and in order to compensate for the
heavy hammers=20
		they have to reduce friction to make proper touchweight
specs.
=09
	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.=20
	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.=20
	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.=20
	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.=20
	=09
		After spending the day with Eric I'm not totally a
proponent of their=20
		way, but I'm definitely more open to it. I agree that if
that's how they=20
		do it I should at least look into it...=20
		=20
	Sounds reasonable to me. Tho like you, my initial reaction is
.... "strange" :)=20
	 =20
	BTW, maybe my readings were not as accurate because of how fast
I ran=20
	through everything. Just trying to get a feel for things there.
But if I=20
	increased 5+ grams in the hammer flange doesn't that multiply
for DW?
=09
	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.=20
		 =20
		Jim=20
		 =20
		<https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives> =20
=09
	Cheers=20
	RicB=20
	--=20
	Richard Brekne=20
	RPT, N.P.T.F.=20
	UiB, Bergen, Norway=20
	mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no=20
	http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html=20
	http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html=20
	 =20

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/c0/c9/89/b9/attachment.htm

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