[pianotech] Big challenge met(finally)

[Claude Harding]

David,

   Thanks so much for sharing this story and information, and also for the
wise counsel.

 

Best regards,

Claude Harding, RPT (& still trying to learn)

 

  _____  

From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of David Andersen
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 6:20 PM
To: Pianotech Pianotech
Subject: [pianotech] Big challenge met(finally)

 

About two weeks ago we were engaged by a serious amateur player to improve
the tone and touch on his 2005 Mason  Hamlin CC (9'4")
concert grand. In the almost six years he's owned the instrument, he's had a
veritable parade of technicians here in southern California
do their best to make the instrument "sound bigger than a 6-foot instrument,
and to let me play it soft with good repetition" (owner's words.)
Now the piano is in a beautiful performance space in mid-town L.A., and the
owner has a 7-foot Shigeru Kawai in his house, so the stark
difference between the pianos is truly glaring. 

When I sat down and played it, it sounded like a really nice Yamaha C2(6'3")
or C5 (6'7") with a weird resistance at the bottom of the keystroke and a
generally mushy or indefinite feeling. I started to remember another M&H CC
my partner Steve Bellieu and I had worked on five or six years ago that was
similar: better feeling action, but a really "small" sound for such a big
instrument. The problem then? Short blow distance. Concert grands should
have a minimum of 46mm blow; if the action ratio and geometry can support 47
or 48mm, so much the better.

So: on to diagnostics in the present day----

-Board eval.: good sustain, good bloom in all sections; positive crown,
positive bearing
-Blow distance: 39mm (Huh?!!?)
-Key travel:    9.75mm (shallow; we prefer 10.25-10.5mm)
-Action ratio via Erwin's Ratio Gauge: over 6.0, less than 6.5 (way too high
for a modern action,
        and a huge disparity in ratio between sharps and naturals)
-Downweight: 55-58gm
-Upweight: 30-32gm
-Balance Weight: 42.5-45.0 (too heavy, too resistant; we never like to go
beyond a 39.0 balance weight)
-Action spread: 112.60mm (OK; ideal is 112.75mm)
-Key leads: very light; one lead in #6; one lead in #20; three leads in the
low sharps; back leads ( behind the balance rail) in keys 66-88

The shanks were resting or barely off the cushions, so we realized quickly
we would have to cut into something important to make this work: the stack
was too high. The ratio was too high. Somebody had cut the hammers way, way
down in the tail; everything was cacked up.

What we did:
-lowered the back of the stack 2mm
-lowered the front of the stack + - 4mm
-moved and custom-set the capstan line (different positions for sharp and
natural capstans)
-re-weighed the keys (added more lead)
-peeled back the shank rest cushions (took off about 3 mm of material)
-set key travel at 10.5mm
-put Crescendo (white Wurzen felt) punchings on the front rail
-reglued six hammerheads in the bass that had come loose from the molding
-parts-to-strings alignment
-bed keyframe, complete action regulation
-final blow distance: 47.5mm in bass, 46.5mm in tenor and treble
-added mini-binder clips to shanks on wound strings
-final Balance Weight: 36.5 in tenor and treble, 38.5 in the bass
-regulated pedals, timed dampers
-tightened plate bolts
-Voiced it
-Tuned it
Final tone: way, way bigger and fatter---now it sounds like a balanced
9-foot piano with a good (not huge) bass
Final touch: buttery, light, fast, and responsive; repeats with excellence
at all volumes

Later, we'll dry-fit test some different hammers on the thing---new Renner
BluePoints and Ronsen 14-lb. Weickerts---with the owner present and see if
we can sell that work.
I can't wait until he puts his hands on it on Tuesday morning...I LOVE the
reactions at that time, 'cuz it's literally a different piano;
huge wow factor.

Moral: if a new-ish piano sounds and feels like sh**t, and the board is
good, doing more regulation, lubrication, and voicing without changing the
foundational relationships so they comply is like moving deck chairs around
on the Titanic---some well-known area techs tried repeatedly and failed to
improve this piano. The owner told me he's spent "thousands" over the past
five years on attempts to make the piano sound and feel better, although
(appropriately, IMO) he declined to name the attemptees.
Scary.

The big take-aways?
1)  If you are unable to do the kind of work described above, ASK FOR HELP.
Consult with a tech/rebuilder who can.
2)  EVERY SINGLE MILLIMETER OF BLOW DISTANCE YOU CAN EEK OUT, GO FOR IT.
Shortened blow distances have
a devastating effect on the tone and power of a grand piano.
3) It pays to develop your diagnostic skills. Three techs made good money
for their involvement in this job---their hourly rate at full retail.
     Collaboration is king.

Best,

David Andersen
Los Angeles



  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3548 - Release Date: 04/03/11

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20110403/1d380590/attachment.htm>