Interesting damper regulation difference

[Michael Gamble]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Dave S. and List=20

I line up the back (or tail) of the hammer covering to the nose of the
adjacent hammer when regulating check position in an upright. That=92s =
about
the point when dampers should start to move. If they move before that, =
then
the playing weight will be sensibly increased.

With grand regulation =96 the hammer comes to within =BD=94 of the =
string before
the damper starts to rise. After damper regulation always check for =
string
follow through. Nein? Regards

Michael G.(UK)

=20

  _____ =20

From: Piannaman@aol.com [mailto:Piannaman@aol.com]=20
Sent: 22 September 2005 04:46
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Subject: Interesting damper regulation difference

=20

List,

=20

My last two jobs of the day were on nice, new German-built uprights.  =
One is
a Seiler 122, the other is a Wilh. Steinberg(probably 132 centimeters =
tall).
Both are really nicely built upright pianos, with very well regulated
Renner-built actions.

=20

I found the touch on the Seiler to be on the heavy side, and not as
controllable as I'd like.  The cause was from the spoons contacting the
damper levers very shortly after the beginning of the keystroke.

=20

At the other end of the spectrum was the Steinberg.  The hammers were a =
full
2/3 of the way to the string before the dampers began to lift.  The =
action
felt much lighter and far easier to control to me.  And legato playing =
was
no problem.

=20

I thought the philosophical differences in regulation might be of =
interest.

=20

Thanks for reading,

=20

Dave Stahl


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/1a/47/7a/f6/attachment.htm

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