Steinway M problem

[Horace Greeley]

Richard,

I am running between things just now, so I do not have time to give you
more than admittedly glib and flip response to what I assume is a serious
question:

All of the issues which you raise below are, more or less, depending
upon the instant circumstance (that is, on a per piano basis),
"super critical".  However, they are super critical each in concert
with the other, a free-floating, three dimensional well, four, once
the action is set in motion) ballet, if you will.

Specifically:

	1.- The plates can be off all over the place, and not just the v-bar.
	2.- Yes, there is that much variation in casting.
	3.- The tolerances are nominal, and have changed somewhat
		over the years, as casting methods have changed, with
		later (more recent) castings more true to form (that is,
		within "tolerance".)
	4.- No, they don't know either, which is why so much fore
		finishing has been abandoned in favor of jigged
		application/installation.
	5.- The fact that the capstan line _can_ vary doesn't mean
		it should.
	6.- The 2:1 ratio _is_ important, but it must be viewed in
		context with other issues.  I've seen lots and lots
		of "optimized" actions that sound and feel like
		garbage.
	7.- I am not sure that the movement range of the treble
		end was ever quite that great, but it was always
		intended as a compromise anyway - to even out
		the sound between the first and second treble.
	8.- Action swapping is probably more possible now than
		in previous times, but I used to change stacks
		on several pianos a good deal.
	9.- The forefinisher sets the action frame _into_ the walnut
		and mahagony ends of the keyframe, so pins are
		still superfluous, unless, of course, they have been
		removed.
	10.- I don't know about Alzheimer's, but it surely does
		go well with Filet.

Best.

Horace


At 10:39 PM 3/24/97 -0600, you wrote:
>I guess I don't understand why the action has to be force fitted, I
>mean fore-fitted to the key frame, because the capstain line position
>will vary from piano to piano due to finding the optimimum striking
>point.    The only thing that could be off is the plate and only in
>the V bar area.  Do the plates really vary that much? What are the
>tolerences any way? I guess only the factory knows the variance of
>the capstain line from piano to piano.   It seems to me that the
>whippen cusion could  set on the capstain within 2mm  either way.
>Thats almost 3/16".  That's more than enough to fire a framing
>carpenter. Where does the variation in pianos come from?? Besides I
>thought the key frame could be slid in and out for optimum striking
>point at least a half inch (13mm).  I also thought the distance from
>the center rail pin to the center of the capstain was super critical.
> So I assumed the capstains were set on the keys in that regard, on
>the bench according to a template.  So much for assuming, I presume.
>Oh, and I swear I heard a couple of old timers talking about
>switching actions in a B. And I thought my teacher tried it on his M
>and it worked.  But that was a long time ago, (before the piano we
>are talking about was built perhaps) and you know what they say about
>time and memory..  And  I just heard on the news that four glasses of
>wine a day will put off Alzheimers.  I think I will go have another.
>Hmm is it my second or third?
>	I have always wished for line up pins every time I put a an action
>back on the key frame.Sure would make those screw holes easier to
>find, and harder to strip.   If this position is so critical from
>piano to piano, I would think line up pins would be soup d'jour.
>(The kind that are added after everything is screwed into place.)
>
>Richard Moody
>----------
>> From: Horace Greeley <hgreeley@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>> To: pianotech@byu.edu
>> Subject: Re: Steinway M problem
>> Date: Monday, March 24, 1997 10:39 AM
>>
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> I am sorry, but I do not understand your post.
>>
>> With (older) hand-built pianos, all of this forefinishing stuff was
>
>> accomplished in reference to to:
>>
>> 	- String height, measured from the keybed to
>> 		the under-side of the vbar, usually at several points; and,
>>
>> 	- Strike point, determined by (among other things):
>> 		1.- What I would characterize as the "raw" tone of an
>> 			unshaped, unvoiced new hammer; and,
>> 		2.- What I would characterize as "experience influenced
>> 		 	geometry.
>>
>> That is to say, the action was not fit to the keybed until the
>(relatively)
>> stationary parts were in place (and tied down).  Since this was the
>case,
>> "line up pins" were (are) not only superfluous, but
>contraindicated, as they
>> tend to give impression of their being only one "correct" location.
>>
>> So, while in the case of some pianos, finding one that is "right"
>may be of
>> some value.  In the case of an M, however, the numbers (and,
>therefore,
>> relative "rightness") of one piano may be disasterous on another.
>>
>> Someone else has probably already spoken to this.
>>
>> Best.
>>
>> Horace
>>
>>
>> At 09:51 PM 3/21/97 -0600, This question was asked...
>> >How come the capstans miss their whippen cushions??
>> >
>> >Of course the action was set right on the key frame.  In other
>words
>> >the action standard screw downs were right on the money.  Perhaps
>> >there should be "line up pins" as my automobile mechanic calls
>them.
>> >For such a precise placement, I have often wondered how they get
>the
>> >action placed exactly right,especially with hard to get at hold
>down
>> >screws.
>> >Some used cleats, so some red face if that is the case in an M, as
>I
>> >havn't seen one in a while.
>> >	Which is often the answer to perplexing problems, check out an
>> >instrument that is "right" to see if there are differences.  Then
>you
>> >know if the
>> >line up pins, or screw holes, or cleats, or anyting else differs.
>> >(such as the angle of the capstans)
>> >
>> >Richard Moody
>> >
>
>
>
Horace Greeley

Stanford University
email: hgreeley@leland.stanford.edu
voice mail: 415.725.9062
LiNCS help line: 415.725.4627