Ken write; >What is your analysis of a prospective piano whose shanks rest too far >above >the cushions? In other words, what is the underlying problem which you >apparently think makes the piano undesirable? The underlying problem would >not be the high hammer line by itself since that can be easily adjusted >-- I >take it you are suggesting that there is some reason why the hammer line >cannot be adjusted down to where it ought to be. Greetings, I have seen several actions that had a high hammer line. They usually have a long ratio,(few leads). I think the deep dip and high hammer line are required in these actions to create aftertouch, so I would do a Stanwood type analysis and see if the ratio is down around 5.3 or so. Another action that looked like this ultimately turned out to have the stack mounted too low, a .125" shimming took care of it. > a new D like this now. Came in with keydip way over >"spec", blow distance way under "spec", and if one lowers the hammer line, >then the back of the hammer felts rebound against the backchecks way before >the shanks could get down to the cushions. I would be curious to hear what some of the numbers look like on this action, Ken. I bet the average front weight on those keys will be lower than normal. I have been known to soak the lower half of the hammer in a little thin CA glue, pull the staple, and carve the lower half of the hammer to shape. It plays hob with getting an even strike weight line on the chart, so do it first. I would say that 95 % of the Steinway grands built in the last 40 years have heavier hammers than 95% of the pianos built before that. Carving them to shape is the norm. Let us know what the action measure out at. Regards., Ed Foote
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC