Or step back into the old box. I don't recall ever hearing a good explanation of why the screw-adjustable felt-bushed hammer shank flange is not popular. Anyone got a take on that? I'm talking about the kind you commonly find on large American square grands. I know David Stanwood also experimented with them in his early action-metrology years. Seems to me like such a perfect solution. Terry Farrell Sarah Fox wrote: > But stepping outside the box, for a second, there's a problem of getting > stuck in the groove of trying to optimize a technology that can only do just > so much. Should we not be focusing on how to create tight, rigid, hard, > frictionless, noiseless, easily serviceable bearings, rather than using the > same ol' technology of packing an oversized wooden hole with enough padding > to take up the slack and not be *too* heavy in friction, seeking to find the > optimal comprimise the is the least of all evils? Bushing cloth may not be > the best material! While hard bearings may be noisy, they are only noisy if > they are loose. The problem with Steinway's Teflon blunder was the > loosening of the Teflon in the wooden hole with humidity changes. > Conceivably, with wear, there could also be a problem with noise and runout > (slop), as the Teflon holes wear larger. Considering these things, wouldn't > the best long-range solution be to figure out a way to fix the bushing mount > problem -- to make the mount more resistant to deterioration from humidity > changes and, moreover, make the bushings very easily, quickly, and cheaply > replaceable? What if all the hammer bushings could be replaced in the > course of a half hour, without the need for painstaking fitting and > refitting? What if total replacement of bushings were done every, say, 5-20 > years (depending on usage), at a cost to the owner of perhaps $100. Isn't > that where we should be headed? > > Peace, > Sarah
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC