[CAUT] bechstein

[Alan McCoy]

David,

Be sure early on to take care of the obvious friction
problems/inconsistencies that you have.

Also note #40 presents some issues (a BW of 48!). I'd bet that the leading
pattern changes on this note. Smoothing the FW will help out these
inconsistencies.

Alan


-- Alan McCoy, RPT
Eastern Washington University
amccoy at mail.ewu.edu
509-359-4627


> From: David Ilvedson <ilvey at sbcglobal.net>
> Reply-To: <ilvey at sbcglobal.net>, "College and University Technicians
> <caut at ptg.org>" <caut at ptg.org>
> Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:28:10 -0700
> 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
> 
> 
>