Positioning Plate/Action

[Farrell]

The capos look pretty good on this plate (I won't mention that I reshaped
them). I can see that the allen/machine screws for the plate circumference
would be nice in a case like mine where you want to play quite a bit with
plate height, etc. I just installed my second set of dowels to set the plate
height a bit higher than I had it initially. Oh, well.

Terry Farrell
Piano Tuning & Service
Tampa, Florida
mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Horace Greeley" <hgreeley@stanford.edu>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Positioning Plate/Action


>
> Terry,
>
> I am coming in late on this but am wondering if, in addition to the 52mm
> length (good choice), you have also checked to see if whatever passes for
a
> capo is actually linear, without bends, curves and/or deflections toward
> what would be the keybed as you move upward from the tenor to the top
> treble?  If things are truly as screwy as they seem to be, you might need
> to try to work out the plate height from whatever you can reconstruct of
> the proper regulation of the action.  I think I would set some samples
> throughout the action, and then set the plate height using sample
"strings"
> (maybe 12 or 11.5, something light enough to not cause problems, but
> sufficiently heavy to not deflect too much while measuring).  Someone used
> to make/sell large flat head machine screws with allen sockets that were
> great for this kind of thing.  The screws would (sort of) self-thread into
> the holes for the perimeter plate screws, then the plate was set on top of
> them, and the allen key could be used to adjust the height of the
> plate.  Quite inventive, and a real time saver.  Traditionally, for S&S,
> the plate height (for the treble) was measured at note 62 (with the
> assumption that the capo was quite straight).  I cannot speak for how
other
> makers do this.
>
> Best.
>
> Horace
>
>
>
> At 10:37 PM 2/3/01 -0600, you wrote:
> > >Anyone have any input on whether I should go with a 52 mm or a 47 mm
> > >speaking length? Or best way for me to decide? If it is likely that the
52
> > >mm speaking length and 9.5 mm strike point combo is right in the
typically
> > >good functioning ballpark, I'd rather stick with that - it will be
easiest
> > >for me. Any input?
> > >
> > >Terry Farrell
> >
> >No contest. I'd go with the 52mm any day, and position the strike point
> >wherever it sounded best when all was said and done.
> >
> >
> >Ron N
>
>