[CAUT] S&S M Strike point

[Ron Nossaman]

On 12/24/2012 3:45 PM, John Delacour wrote:
>Hello Dale,
>
> I have indeed seen you mention this before and seen pictures of the
> result, and it’s always occurred to me that the reason you have found
> this kludge necessary is that you did not custom bore the hammers for
> the piano but used standard bore hammers, with the result that where the
> strike line is grossly arched in the middle of the scale owing to
> Steinway’s lack of quality control, your hammers are over-striking—that
> is to say striking the string a few millimetres too near the
> termination.  This was the case with some (probably many) grands when
> they left the factory in the 1970s and 80s; they were never right
> because they were fitted with standard bore hammers.

Hello John,
It's an interesting thought, but would require boring for the greatest 
string height, which doesn't make a lot of sense. Dale's photos show the 
hammers moved forward in the low capo section, which would require under 
striking for that to serve as compensation, not over striking. So that's 
not it. These hammer line adjustments always - ALWAYS - start at the 
bottom of the first capo section regardless of string height. Your 
photo, for instance, shows the most height deviation at the high end of 
the agraffes, where the strike point kluge isn't necessary. The fact 
that the problem area is where it is indicates to me that it is very 
likely the tuned front duplexes that are the culprit. When I'm allowed 
to desecrate the sacred Steinway design by eliminating long tuned front 
duplexes in favor of short duplexes and a continuous brass counter 
bearing, I find it unnecessary to deviate from a straight strike line.

Ron N