Sorry Ric, Jon, et al - I didn't in any way mean to imply that I was ignoring your advice! I just have a tendency to "think out loud" as I'm discussing options in this kind of situation. I actually don't have the action now - it belongs to a church and they had to have it back for a rehearsal yesterday, so I explained that it needed more extensive work than I had time to finish and we scheduled an appt. for me to pick the action back up and have another go at it. Once I get it back in my shop, I'll take a closer look at action spread, hammer bore, etc. and let you know what I find. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers! Thank you very much for the help! -- Scott A. Helms, RPT Helms Music Enterprises (269) 381-4521 www.helmsmusic.net Richard Brekne said: > Lets requalifiy things here.... both Jons and my own <<advice>> on this > post were accompanied by cautions stateing the need for more hard > information on the actions condition. There is no way we can simply > suggest <<the solution>> to why 7mm of let off is as close as the > fellow can get. Ergo we simply offered food for thought, and suggested > things to look for, along with a call for a more thorough description of > the actions condition. > > Raising the stack, the hammer rail, sanding or changing to shorter > regulating buttons, can all be appropriate, or <<disastrours>> depending > on the real situation. I wouldnt go raising the stack based on just the > <string height minus hammer bore> factor any more then I would without > further ado start altering the length of the letoff buttons. Like I > said in my first post.... 7 mm is a mile away from the strings... well > half of checking distance. Something is very wrong with an action that > cant get letoff closer to this, and the appropriate course to take is to > ascertain what the heck the problem is first... yes ? > > Knowing Schimmel pianos as I do, I find the whole problem as described > quite suspicious to begin with, and I believe I made that point quite > clear. Schimmel doesnt make junk, and a Schimmel action which displays > this kind of a problem more then likely is either been tampered with, or > has suffered some kind of injury. > > So... in lue of any more hard info about this actions condition... > > Cheers > RicB > > Jon Page wrote: > >>>However, Ric is right. The most obvious fix is to sand the >>back-sides of >>>the buttons, so that you can adjust them a bit higher. >> >>No, this would be disastrous if you first don't verify the degree of >>after touch now present. >>If there is little or no after touch now, trimming the buttons will >>produce even less a/t; >>raising the stack is an easier solution without further compromising a/t. >>You need to establish >>practical action elevations for the ratio parameters to work assuming the >>elevations are improper, >>this is part if the info we are lacking and can only speculate. >> >>It is very difficult to speculate without more info or actually >>physically seeing the action. >>David I. touched on a good speculation... are the drop screws set too low >>restricting the >>upwards motion of the repetition lever. Or to use the drop screw as a >>stack height indicator: >>If the drop screws are set as high as possible and the hammer still >>doesn't rise enough; then >>that would indicate too short of hammer bore and/or improper stack >>height. >> >>A few years ago I regulated a Schimmel and I think I did have to raise >>the stack to coerce the >>action into proper function. If <string height minus hammer bore> >>is not close to hammer center >>height then the stack height should be addressed. >> >>As far as the spread goes, lacking the factory spec; set the jack to be >>90 degrees to the >>shank at rest (aligned on the knuckle core with proper hammer blow >>distance). >> >> >> Regards, Jon Page, piano technician Harwich Port, Cape Cod, Mass. >> mailto:jonpage@comcast.net >> <mailto:jonpage@comcast.net>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC