Big hammers

[Barbara Richmond]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Step back in time.......

  From: Horace Greeley <hgreeley@stanford.edu>
  Date: August 31, 2004 10:20:40 PM CDT
  To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
  Subject: Re: Big hammers



  Barb - I would be more concerned about overall action geometry that =
the size of the hammers at this point.  Those knuckles look a bit close =
to the flange pin.=20

They are close.  At first I thought I measured 16 mm, but then I got out =
my caliper (after my trip to the store to buy a new battery for it, of =
course)--they're 15.5 mm.  I was told this rebuilding is about 10 years =
old.  The piano is from 1975.

   Also, looking at the backchecks, this is a pre-'87 instrument (for =
_me_, this is a GOOD THING!...largely because of the significantly =
larger range of regulation possible...long subject and I am not looking =
to start a discussion)...being of that vintage, you are also going to =
want to check not only action spread, but also deck height from the =
keybed to the CP of each of the whippen and hammer flanges. =20

OK, I can do that, but does it make any difference that these are 10 =
year old (or so) Renner parts that aren't working so well at the moment? =
 Action spread is 4.50".  I just have the stack home with me now.  Is =
there a "best way" to measure from the keybed to the CP of the whippen =
and hammer flanges?

  Try to carefully assess what was actually done at the factory, and =
what has been done since then...looking especially to see if there has =
been a change in the material under the back rail cloth.  Usually, this =
would have had a layer of red key felt, often on top of one or =
(sometimes, but not often) two layers of what amounts to manila card =
stock (this latter usually dark brown in color). =20

The back rail felt is original.

  Also, check to see when/if anyone has replaced the balance rail =
pivots; and/or the front rail (felt) punchings.  etc.

I believe that balance rail pivots are original, but could you describe =
what the originals looked like?  I doubt the front rail punchings are =
original.

> In other words, before doing _anything_ try to get a very solid idea =
of what it is you are looking at.  Then, work=20
> backwards.  As someone (Andre?  Isaac? sorry) noted, sometimes (even =
often) "just" a good, solid regulation will=20
> do more for tone and projection than even many technicians will =
believe.

Currently, on note 1 the Down weight was 64 and Up weight, 33.  Using =
the Standwood measurements the balance weight is way too high (48.5) and =
so is the Strike Balance ratio (6.36).  (I don't plan on using spring =
assisted whippens--the jury is still out on those with me--I've gotten =
too many mixed reviews).  When I put on a New York Style 17 mm shank and =
did a quick regulation the DW dropped to 56 and UW to 28 (still using =
the Renner whip--which measures out to match the drawing of the Hamburg =
style whip in the Steinway manual--from 1992) and the other numbers =
(Balance weight and Strike balance ratio) got a lot closer to what I've =
read is acceptable (and it certainly felt a lot better!).   I'll test a =
few more notes on Friday to make sure that regulation is really possible =
and to make sure my initial results weren't just wishful thinking.  Are =
there any problems combining Renner whips with Steinway style shanks?  =
Purists or distributors need not reply.  Just trying to keep this a =
low-budget fix-up--but I'll do what is necessary, of course.

> So, after all that, those look like S&S hammers; and, from what little =
can be seen of them, they look as if they are=20
> fairly well molded and shaped...so, look elsewhere before simply =
throwing them out and starting elsewhere.

The hammers are going to work.  When I first heard them, they sounded =
just about as nasty and glassy as you could imagine, but now they have =
that nice broad, gutsy tone--producing a nice variety of tone color as =
they progress from soft to hard blows.  The strike weights run from 12.5 =
- 6.5.  A friend tells me that's a little heavy, but I'm inclined to =
leave them they way they are--for now, anyway.

I'm looking forward to what everyone has to say.

Barbara Richmond

PS  At 12:23 PM 8/31/04, Ric wrote:

> Jimminees Chrasmus.... look at those knuckle cores... that HAD to be =
done willfully... ..=20
> or maybe its just the picture is a bit distorted...
> RicB

The picture is inaccurate.  The knuckle is crooked but not bent.  Does =
that make sense?






---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/be/10/50/c9/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--