---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Matthew writes: Well, thank you list for the responses, and for making me feel like an idiot. Hi Matthew, I'm sorry that some of the responses were less respectful than they could have been. That is unnecessary. The technicians I respect most realize how much they have yet to learn, and are the most humble. Earlier Steinways were designed with a different key ratio, a lighter hammer, and a different knuckle placement on the shank than is used in current production. The factory's first response to rebuilders was to provide a "pre-1984" shank (made by Renner) which was the same knuckle placement as the older instruments. However, matched with the heavier modern hammer, this made for a lot of klunky actions which certainly didn't feel "like Steinways." In addition, the Steinway hammer has always been fairly soft. This becomes more problematic when it is also made heavier, in that a heavier hammer requires increased stiffness to produce the high partials. In some cases this requires so much lacquer that the resilience of the hammer is reduced beyond its capacity to produce a tone with good dynamic shading, and actually robs real power. Factory parts went through a period of terrible quality, and only recently have returned to very high standards of accuracy. I have experienced some pinning problems (as with Renner and Abel), but the traveling has improved immensely. Current production parts will function on older instruments, but the changed leverage changes the keydip/blow distance ratio unusably, in my opinion. We have been using the factory repetitions for four or five years, but are happy that other shank executions are available from the aftermarket. Bob Davis ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/7c/16/9b/e6/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC