113mm is standard spread. I would stick with Renner S/F. The Abel Select would be a good choice, in my view, and you can take quite a bit off by table saw tapering. David Love davidlovepianos at comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Ilvedson Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 10:28 PM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] bechstein The action regulates well...I was wondering about the action spread...113 mm, but that seems OK? The slotted wippen rail has a washer impression quite a bit closer towards the balance rail... The capstans seem to be in line with the balance rail. I will be installing new shanks and flanges, probably Renner but I'm considering Abel, so the knuckle alignment should be good... I haven't looked closely at the magic line with a thread, but just eying it, it seems OK... I"m leaning towards the Abel Standard...the Abel Select really seemed to heavy...stock sample #29 was 10.5 grams...no shank...1/2 high. I wonder if that 10.5 could be brought down 2 grams? I'm thinking adding a pit of weight to the Standards makes more sense than removing from Select. Any comments on the difference between these hammers? Both seem to be a beautiful consistent hammer... John Delacourts comments about Abel making Bechstein hammers makes me think they might be a good match for this piano...I did try the a few in the piano and like the sound... David Ilvedson, RPT Pacifica, CA 94044 ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net> To: "Pianotech List" <pianotech at ptg.org>, "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org> Received: 8/6/2006 9:34:56 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] bechstein >With the exception of note 16 (not sure what's going on there), I don't see >any real problem here. Even if you were you to reweigh down to 37 or 38 >grams, you are comfortably under FW maximums (as outlined by Stanwood >charts). You do have some room to add weight especially if you wanted to >push up the balance weight a little. An R of 5.6 or 5.7 is a reasonable >target, in my view, for good regulation specs--check and see though. If you >smooth out the strike weights in the basic range that your hammers seem to >be falling and set up the front weights accordingly aiming for a uniform >balance weight, you should be fine. I would double check the measurements >on #16. My guess is that there is some measurement error. Trying to get >perfectly uniform R numbers is generally not possible depending on things >like uniform knuckle hanging, straight capstan line and capstan line >parallel to the balance rail line (which it appears you may not have), not >to mention elimination of measurement error (always a factor). >If the current hammers produce a tone that you like with the current weight, >why would you change hammers? If you want to experiment with weight, you >can always use the binder clip method--removeable too! >David Love >davidlovepianos at comcast.net >www.davidlovepianos.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC