Avery Todd wrote: > List, > > Wasn't there recently a discussion about the "new" way that Steinway > is recommending > pinning their actions. Very "loose" as compared to the traditional > methods, as I > remember. Or had I just had too much Vodka that night? :-) > > Avery Yep... and it was a real interesting one,,, a discussion that made many good... tho to my mind not compelling reasons in favour of the fly away hammer gang of ... some few... hehe... Still... if New York Steinway wants their instruments that way.. then you should for stick to it unless you can confirm it creats indefensable problems. Hamburg Steinway on the other hand,,,, entirely disagrees with New York on this matter and stays with Renner shanks with graphited bushings and the shank tap test... that ends up being around 5-7 swings in the middle section.. a bit more in the bass and a bit less in the treble. I generally repin to get about 5.7 swings regardless of the register. RicB > > P.S. Sorry, I can't remember the name of the thread. > >> Rather than for others to harp on why you are wrong, it would be >> wonderful if discussion were to center on overcoming the challenges, >> if any, of a low-friction action -- or on what the tradeoffs are with >> other parameters of the action. >> >> Finally, you are quite right about the difference between "free" and >> "loose." If you were to equip those hammer shanks with high-quality >> ceramic bearings, they would be both rock-solid and slippery-free. >> Perhaps Steinway wasn't entirely on the wrong track with their teflon >> bushings. Perhaps it was simply a good idea, poorly implemented, and >> ahead of its time. I wonder if we shouldn't give it another go -- >> this time with teflon-lined carbon fiber flanges and shanks? >> >> Yours in peace and heresy, >> Sarah >> >> >> >> >> >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC