Hammer re-facing and blow distance

[David Boyce]

Yes, sorry, Terry, I didn't mean to imply a special connection between lost 
motion and re-faced hammers.  I simply meant that, as you say, taking up the 
lost motion can be the single most beneficial step.

Jon, I know attention to letoff and backcheck etc can help, but I'm talking 
about a situation where the action operation is reasonable and funds are 
limited.

Annie, yes I was really musing over various pianos I've re-faced over the 
years.  The Challen I did on Saturday, I'd already  taken up the lost motion 
on at a previous tuning.  The market in this area generally won't bear much 
in the way of regulation costs.

One thing I find helps persuade people about re-facing is that they can SEE 
what I'm talking about. I use my flashlight or whatever, to get a good 
light, and show them the hammer surfaces and explain that over time the 
strings cut into the felt like cheesewires, and they can see the effect for 
themselves.

Then I explain using my a fist as "hammer" and three fingers as "strings" 
how instead of a clean blow, the sides of the groves can "stroke" the 
strings, and the bottoms of the grooves can be at different depths (if the 
customer is technically-minded, I explain about phase cancellation). But the 
main thing is, they can SEE the problem.

Best,

David.


"I'm curious why you separate out regulating lost motion from the rest of 
regulating tasks. Just because you have filed the hammers, doesn't dictate 
regulating lost motion. However, I do agree that lost motion regulation on a 
long-neglected piano is often one of the most beneficial single regulating 
steps".