[CAUT] Steinway D elevations

[reggaepass at aol.com]

Renner Big Blues are also available this way.



Alan Eder


-----Original Message-----
From: Don Mannino <DMannino at kawaius.com>
To: College and University Technicians <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 1:09 pm
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway D elevations




Doug,

In my opinion, the best performance will come if the hammers are bored
to fit the string height, and the tails are then trimmed to the correct
distance below the shanks after the hammers are hung. This will allow
regulation for the best action performance, leaving fudge room in the
regulation for wear and such.

This means ordering extra long, un-coved hammers from someone like
Ronson - I don't know if anyone else is currently making something like
that.  Perhaps Brooks has some Abels configured like that.

I haven't bought hammers from Steinway in a long time, but with a high
center string height I think their tails will end up being short in the
center.  This necessitates either lengthening the tails or raising the
backchecks.  I don't like raising the backchecks that far, though, and
adding wood to the tails is kind of a hassle.

I would go ahead and measure height at each note and try to taper your
boring distance to match.  Measure your action center height carefully,
though, and check the keybed for relative flatness.  Everything tends to
be curved on those pianos, and this can throw off your boring specs.

Don Mannino


> -----Original Message-----
> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On 
> Behalf Of Douglas Wood
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 12:12 PM
> To: College and University Technicians
> Subject: [CAUT] Steinway D elevations
> 
> I have a question for those of you with experience in custom 
> boring hammers. Our heavily-used and very nice D#542295 has 
> an elevation challenge that I'm working on. The piano 
> generally works very well, but has a reputation for being 
> "tricky". I think part of this is due to the following problem:
> 
> The string height in the upper tenor is nearly 1/8" higher 
> than the sections on either side, and note 88 is 1/8 lower 
> than the majority of the piano.
> 
> So, the regulation does work, but that central section has 
> the shanks a bit high off the rest felts, and the rest of the 
> piano has shanks nearly on the rest felts. As I say, it 
> works, but I'm considering a custom boring job to match the 
> bore to the string heights. I will, of course, revisit stack 
> height before boring, as I'd like to do the figures only once more.
> 
> The real question is, how far from nominal bore spec can one 
> go before encountering other problems? And should I follow 
> the string heights closely all the way across, or do more 
> like Steinway does, and allow regulation to take up some of 
> the variance?
> 
> Doug Wood
> 



________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070629/98f8c0dc/attachment.html