It is interesting to note that when I compare my strike line compensations with Dale’s on boards that require it the change and shape are very similar. You are right that there is a subjective nature to what sounds better to one tech over another but in this case mostly what’s happening is trying to achieve a uniform “tone line” if you will. There, perhaps, it’s easier to agree. The killer octave problems that I hear on most Steinways don’t usually start down in the capo section but almost always right around F5 or F#5 (several notes above the break) and progress through the lower capo section. The upper capo section is often more forgiving, though not always. (As an aside it’s interesting to note that Del has often pointed out that the ribbing in the very upper end of the piano doesn’t really contribute all the much to the requisite stiffness in that section. That the panel itself with its narrow configuration does a decent job of that on its own. But I’ll let him clarify that if I’m not stating it correctly.) That a 2-3 mm move in the lower capo section makes a difference (actually I think it’s more like 4 mm on the B at the maximum point) demonstrates how fragile that area is in terms of tone production and is not an insignificant number in terms of a deviation from the theoretical strike line. With the now many RC&S boards I’ve done (and re Dale’s post our formulas may in fact be a bit different) plus the one’s I’ve heard that I haven’t done (mostly Del Fandrich designed and built boards) there just isn’t that same sensitivity to hammer placement and honestly I’m always testing strike line characteristics on all pianos I deal with. Don’t know if that answers your question. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:48 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Hammer strike line. Was-----Yamaha Hammer Suggestion In a message dated 2/7/2010 9:38:41 P.M. Central Standard Time, davidlovepianos at comcast.net writes: While the resetting of the strike line helps the sound on these original boards it doesn’t exactly make it sound great, just less bad. That tells me that the moving of the strikeline is, at best, a compensation. It’s not a fix or necessarily a requirement of that particular style of board but a partial remedy to a common condition that is often found in the killer octave. Terrific attempt to explain this! Even after guzzling beer. But the above taken from your post also points out the subjective-ness of the whole discussion. It doesn't in any way disqualify it, but, e.g., would two rebuilders side-by-side move the same hammer to the same position to "compensate" (as you so well put it), or remediate the original designed hammer placement (in SS's case at 5.125")? And again, even given the wholly scientific nature of your explanation ( <http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201e05fca/01> ), why do 2-3 mm make that significant a difference? The killer octave tends to break over from the agraffe section to the capo section, and the strings are not the short ones I'd associate with the description you give, although it is very clear and apt for them. P -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20100207/3cf7a97d/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC