Choosing Steinway D

[Kent Swafford]

on 10/4/00 7:12 PM, A440A@AOL.COM at A440A@AOL.COM wrote:

> 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.
>> 
>> I am dealing with 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.

> 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.

Hi Ed,

No, the aftertouch was wildly excessive with the high hammer line and the
deep key dip. In this particular action, the aftertouch fell right into
normal amounts when the hammer line was lowered to "spec" and the key dip
was reduced to "spec". One is tempted to speculate that the factory
regulators regulated this action as if it did have the "long ratio" that you
you say you have seen in other actions.

> 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

Unfortunately, time constraints made taking such measurements out of the
question. Since it turned out that the action regulated normally, that is,
it worked fine when regulated to "spec", I was left with the problem of too
much felt on the backside of the tenor and mid-section hammers. (I know,
others say the problem here is short tails which require the backchecks to
be installed too high.) My tool of choice for dealing with the problem of
too much felt is a Foredom tool with the band sander attachment. It may be a
"misuse" of this tool, but I find this band sander to be an almost perfect,
very controllable coving tool. The band sander makes short work of taking
the bottom of the felt off the back of the hammer -- and I sand right
through the twisted portion of the staple. So far, I've never had any
problem leaving the staple in this state, with no "twist".

Kent Swafford