[CAUT] [pianotech] Baldwin Accujust

[Fred Sturm]

	Well, this board has a bit of crown, not flat or negative like most I  
have (Next to nil is a lot here in NM: there is actually a bit of  
shadow cast by the string I stretch). Current conditions, bearing is  
flat to negative, with a wee bit of positive in the very top treble.  
So my take is I should bring the string plane down to meet the bridge,  
just measurably positive bearing most places, a bit more high treble,  
probably trying for a bit less than the Baldwin specs (work done with  
the piano at the low end of RH). This is where the piano will be most  
of its life (these RH parameters). And I'll see what I see.
	Expectations? Hey, I just want the darned strings to render so I can  
tune it. Anything else is gravy, and a bit of experience. But, in any  
case, I threw some of this out as a counter to the notion of measuring  
how high the strings are on the accujust pins right now and using that  
as if it told you something useful. What does that measurement tell  
you? Nothing in and of itself, unless you have at least measured  
bearing, and then it's loaded bearing.
	Of course, if I have negative loaded bearing, I'm not sure where that  
puts me. I'll see what crown I have once the strings are off. In any  
case, I will match the strings to where the board is, rather than  
duplicate the current negative bearing. Which is what I often end up  
doing with restrings on non-accujust pianos (a matter of practicality,  
resources available).
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu



On Apr 27, 2009, at 9:59 PM, Ron Nossaman wrote:

>>    I so rarely see positive bearing and crown in more than sporadic  
>> and tiny increments out here in the desert, I guess I've stopped  
>> expecting it. In any case, it seems like I should have the mindset  
>> of finesse and easy does it for the Baldwin accujust job.
>
> Without what it takes in crown and bearing to make the things  
> function, I'd think finesse would easily segue into fantasy  
> undetected. When faced with the impossible, you do what you can and  
> temper expectations accordingly.
>
>
>> My notion is I don't really care about reproducing what is there  
>> now (40 years later or so), but I do want to load the board  
>> somewhat, and probably no more than it was designed to be at first.  
>> Crown is next to nil at this point, which is under conditions of 8%  
>> RH last reading, and below 20% for the last 6 months.
>
> All of which is outside design parameters. So in the absence of  
> design criteria, what become the priorities?