Let off

[Sean Kelly]

Dear Dave,
    I also set the let off as close as possible on the grands used for
concerts (usually tuned/checked weekly).  And in regards to your comment
about setting the let off so that the string doesn't vibrate against it, I
set it as follows:
    -set it so that the hammer blocks against the string
    -back it off until the string vibrates against the hammer
    -back it off just a little bit more and, voila!
    The pianists love it: optimum control and power.
                                        All the Best,
                                            Sean
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Nereson <dnereson@dimensional.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 2:51 AM
Subject: Re: Let off


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bradley M. Snook <bsnook@pacbell.net>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 9:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Let off
>
>
> >  . . .  what is
> > wrong with setting the let-off as high as possible?. . . . Isn't closer
> better? Just as long as the hammers
> > don't block the strings. I really don't get the 'three times the
thickness
> > of the core' thing. That seems like a lot of lost power and control. Or
is
> > that just a good 'standard' for pianos that are never regulated?
> >
> > Bradley M. Snook
>
>     I too, always thought let-off should be as close as possible.  And in
a
> finely-regulated concert situation, it should be.  But a few times I have
> regulated old actions, setting the let-off a little too close.  Then after
> the jacks have compressed the let-off punchings in their new positions,
> hammers can start blocking.
>     Also, when Yamaha came out with the "silent piano" feature of their
> upright Disklaviers, they discovered they could have let-off at about a
half
> an inch and it didn't affect power and control all that much.  Not for 95%
> of piano players, anyhow.
>     The core of the lowest bass string on a 9' Steinway is #27 wire, which
> is .067" in diameter.  Three times that is .201", a little more than
3/16",
> but not quite 1/4".  That seems a bit wide to me.  The reason for setting
it
> wide is supposedly so the string can't vibrate against the hammer when the
> hammer is held up close to the string by the repetition lever.  The only
> time this is the case is after a very soft blow -- so soft that the hammer
> didn't go into check.  In that case, the string wouldn't be taking much of
> an excursion unless this very soft blow immediately followed a very heavy
> blow, which might happen once in a blue moon.
>     I dunno, I usually set let-off in the low bass at about the thickness
of
> the whole string,  and taper it up to about 1/16" in the treble.  1/32" is
> getting too close to where a hammer could block on certain types of blows,
> in my opinion, especially if the let-off button has recently been turned,
> has new felt, has springy felt, or, as someone else said, if the hammer
> shank is a bit rubbery, or if the keyframe isn't perfectly bedded, . . .
>     --David Nereson, RPT, Denver
>
>
>