[CAUT] [pianotech] Baldwin Accujust

[Ed Sutton]

Fred-

This could be an opportunity to experiment with springs under the 
soundboard....maybe set them on a rail parallel to the bridge, and have nice 
adjustment screws to adjust tension....   ;-)

Ed S.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm at unm.edu>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] [pianotech] Baldwin Accujust


> 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?
>
>