Counter bearing treatment

[Newton Hunt]

>         One thing I never got to ask was "what about the diff between SnS at 1
> 3/4 and all the rest at 1 7/8  but both with 3/8 dip? It seems the piano
> of the "immortals" sits 1/4 inch closer to the string.  How is that
> significant to the dip to travel ratio? does that mean the "5 to 1 ratio"
> is somehow magically different?   Or did they patent the 1 3/4" blow? 
> 
> btw this has half agraffes under the capo bar, where the heck
> am I going to find replacements for them when I restring??---ric 


Steinway, Yamaha, and others have worked out their overall designs
have "compact" actions, take up less room from keybed to pinblock. 
This has allow more elegant case designs but also means they must all
work to closer tolerances.

They also carefully worked out the best arrangement strings and tuning
pins within a narrow range for the same purpose.  Other piano makers
didn't bother and had great big clunky actions and cases.

Chickering tried to squeeze as much into a skinny and narrow case as
they could some results that tend to drive us crazy.

There are variations, all kinds of them, which I prefer to bore my
hammers to so I can get the best performance from the action.  So, in
answer to your questions, the hammer shank should not go past
horizontal because there will be a loss of energy in returning past
horizontal again and because the hammer may well be overstriking.  The
hammer should strike the string when it is perfectly perpendicular to
the string for best energy transfer.  Under a hard blow it will not be
but in unflexing the shank it will impart that stored energy into the
string and give more projection.

The 5:1 ration is not very likely because it implies a key movement to
a hammer movement but there are many other movement involved as well
including key mass, wippen mass and hammer mass.  When all the
quantities are known the actual shrike ratio is known which should be
in the 5.6 to 6.4:1 range.  Now we are taking about action ratios
which are far more informative than just a key to blow ratio.  I once
has an Old Weber where the bass string height differed by 5/8" from
one end to the other.  I asked to have the hammers bored to compensate
for that difference.  When hung they looked a little odd but the
action regulated to a gnats aspiration and felt so "good"!  So don't
assume that one measurement is sufficient, you need one from each
section end.

S&S Hamburg assembles an action and carefully then place it into a
case.  S&S NY places a key frame into a case then adjust the stack to
fit the string locations then drop a line from wippen to key top to
locate the capstan line.  The first will give a consistent strike
ratio the second practice allows the ratio to change and effect action
performance.  Capstan location has the most profound effect on action
leverage, ratios and performance than any other element
whatsoever...period.  What that means is that relocating capstans will
solve more problems than spread action, hammer weights, key weights,
or knuckle location.  All these can solve problems but if the capstans
are mislocated then the others won't have sufficient effect to bring
the action into "compliance".

When I was regulating an action at the Bosendorfer factory my work was
being checked by a worker who said the letoff was too close.  I said
that I followed is instructions so after a bit of talking he took out
a straight edge and check the level of the strings.  The removable
capo de tasto bar was warped downward in the middle which pushed the
strings down.  I said, "No problem!"  I proceeded to take out my
magnetic letoff gauges and did the let-off, drop, etc., to conform to
the actual string situation instead of the bench situation.  Kind of
impressed them who had never seen such an approach.

So there are no set answers but different situations you need to
assess and act accordingly.

So, that should create more questions than answers, I hope.

		Newton