Pinning and Tone

[Fred Sturm]

Jim,
	It looked like there was a single, smooth radius on the tails, lacking the 
bump that I have seen on most un-rebuilt Steinways I have serviced over the 
years. I didn't put a compass on it, but it looked like a smooth arc. I 
didn't see it being done, but it appeared that a set of hammers, I think 
already hung (must have been) was clamped together in a fixture and 
machined. I was told they were using a 4 1/2" radius, but the source for 
this wasn't absolutely sure. What I saw did look like a bit larger radius 
than I use (I use 3 - 3 1/2"). I was told the larger radius worked in 
relationship with the backcheck angle. A bend in the backcheck wires (done 
by a precise fixture about half way up the wire) puts them at 68 degrees. 
Hearing all this, I was a bit skeptical, but regulating an action, it 
worked like a charm.
	Like you, I have often found myself scuffing the bump off tails (and 
wanting to take the action home and re-radius - doing that fairly often) in 
an attempt to get check distance above 3/4", and to have reliable checking. 
They are also placing check height higher (ie, the top of the check in 
relationship to the key), and have longer tails on the hammers.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico

--On Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:51 AM -0700 Jim Busby <jim_busby@byu.edu> 
wrote:

> Fred,
>
> Absolutely! That is what I found. But, has the radius changed? (tail) My
> new Steinways from 2 months ago had a very sharp radius which I also
> changed with a few quick strokes of the paddle. That seemed to give more
> surface area and needs less roughing up in the long run. Did they indeed
> make that change?
>
> Eric Schandall suggested clamping the shanks and do quick grinding
> (sanding with drill tool or similar) of all the tails to make a better
> radius since if you do each individually it is less uniform and more
> time consuming.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim Busby BYU
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of
> Fred Sturm
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 9:12 AM
> To: College and University Technicians
> Subject: RE: Pinning and Tone
>
>
>
> --On Tuesday, October 28, 2003 8:08 AM -0700 Jim Busby
> <jim_busby@byu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>>
>> This is exactly what started this thread, and after my visit with Eric
>> Schandall and repinning to 4 grams with higher checking things are
>> working wonderfully. Fred said 1-3 grams, but Eric told me "No less
> than
>> 2, no more than 4". Also, they are making the tails a bit longer and
>> want higher checking. It doesn't hurt repetition. It helps it. The key
>> seems to be to pay careful attention to the rep spring strength. No
>> bouncing, jerking, etc. but a firm rise w/o a jump.
>>
>> Jim Busby BYU
>>
> Yes,I think high checking is the key. What we were told was "as high as
> possible", meaning just missing dragging on up stroke. And with current
> factory tail radius and check angle, 3/8" is the norm (used to be hard
> to
> get 5/8 with the "bad old days" tail shape and length, and check
> geometry).
> My own take is that if I have a problem with checking, I'd rather live
> with
> it than compromise on let-off or drop. Scuff the tails more often, keep
> the
> rep spring maybe a tad weaker (in terms of perceived rapidity of rise)
> than
> I might otherwise. If you have high checking, even if piano/pianissimo
> check isn't very reliable, it won't be troublesome to the pianist. Not
> nearly as much as increased drop, IMO.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives