[CAUT] Steinway D elevations

[Andrew Anderson]

Do Steinways (nine footers) like bigger, heavier hammers like 
that.  Seems to me I've heard they are a little heavy to begin with 
and come into their own after a few filings.  Comments, controversy?

Andrew Anderson

At 06:37 PM 6/29/2007, you wrote:
>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: <mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org>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 <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437>AOL.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070629/91e04eb6/attachment.html