Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
Will Truitt
Recently I was called to troubleshoot a rebuilt 1924 Steinway L where the customer was complaining of a very heavy action. The action was rebuilt about a dozen years ago, but little played because it is so tiring to play. The whippens and shanks had been replaced with Renner parts, along with Renner Blue hammers. While the action will need to be regulated, it was not wretchedly out. Quick and dirty down weight checks revealed much of the action in the low to mid 70’s. Because the action has been so little played, the hammers and other actions are in very good condition. She has a rebuilt Steinway B with a far better action parked next to it, so she has played that mostly.
I have Nick Gravagne’s most recent version of his Action Geometry program, which I think is pretty sweet. I took my measures off the action parts and keys, and dropped them into the program. Below is a screen capture of its calculations:
You can see that the key ratio is very good at right around 2 to 1. You can also see where the problems mostly lie – the 15.5 mm. shank duplicates the original, along with its very high shank ratio of 8.43 to 1. The action ratio of 6.65 to 1 is underpowered (and was in 1924). The heavier Renner Blues only exacerbate the problem. This action should probably have a 17 mm. shank, but it doesn’t.
This was a problem in 1924, as evidenced by 5 large leads in most of the bass, tapering down from there. The work that the rebuilder did was generally good and careful, but he did not alter the leading in any way.
My original proposal to her for corrective measures involved complete regulation and lubrication of the action, followed by adding additional leads to bring the downweight down. I did alert her that by doing so I would be adding inertia to an already higher inertia action, even as I was lowering the downweight. A lesser poison basically. She is a person of means, but would prefer to avoid the expense of replacing the shanks (although the bore distance is close enough and there is little enough wear that I could remount the hammers on new 17 mm. shanks)
But this is nagging at me. For one, I would not put more than 6 leads in a key, and even that is on the ragged edge. Secondly, I doubt that one more lead is going to knock off 20 to 25 grams to get me in the low 50’s in the bass (although I lack the means to calculate the effect additional leads would have). So if I am going to get the downweights to a reasonable level, it seems I must explore other alternatives.
Perhaps it is a good candidate for whippen helper springs, which I would retrofit to the whippens and flanges. They might even allow me to reduce the number of leads in the keys, which would be a plus. So I am interested in exploring that.
Another possibility is to move the knuckles further out on the original shanks, although I have never done this.
I would be very interested in whatever input others might have as to the best means to approach this action, particularly from those of you who have more experience at this level of action modification and problem solving.
Will Truitt
Isaac OLEG
17 mm does not solve all as you have to enlarge the spread most often. And move the stack eventually. Any spread under 112 mm you are in trouble. 112.5 113 ok with 17 mm shanks
Hope that helps
Dale Erwin
This action should probably have a 17 mm. shank, but it doesn’t.
Hi Brother Will...and it could easily have 17mm with a days work or less.
She is a person of means, but would prefer to avoid the expense of replacing the shanks (although the bore distance is close enough and there is little enough wear that I could remount the hammers on new 17 mm. shanks.
Again not necessary
So if I am going to get the downweights to a reasonable level, it seems I must explore other alternatives.
Another possibility is to move the knuckles further out on the original shanks, although I have never done this.
Yes... lets move the knuckles. It is so easy and fantastic way to get a huge improvement with minimal fuss and extra cost to the client. I have saved many sets of incorrectly chosen/ installed "original dimension " parts. I have a knuckle slotting jig. Take off the shanks and cut off the old knuckles on a band saw. Clean up residue with a motor tool. Cut a new slot in the correct position on the shank and simply slide in a new knuckle with a bit of glue. Reassemble and regulate. But first, while you are at it.... reduce the weight of the heavy Renner blues. Sanding the sides or some other method. There is a table saw jig for this that I have yet to make but need to.
I will mail you the jig Will
Good day
Dale
I would be very interested in whatever input others might have as to the best means to approach this action, particularly from those of you who have more experience at this level of action modification and problem solving.
Dale Erwin
Encore Pianos
Am I correct in interpreting what you are saying that 112.5 to 113 is good for 17 mm. shanks only? Would that value differ for a 15.5 mm. shank? (although I do not know why it would).
Will
Isaac OLEG
Anyway, even with 17 mm tge pread my need to move , some lead to be add (?) and making thebheads trapezoid woyld be the most important move.
Encore Pianos
Hey Brother Dale:
Thanks for your comments. I eagerly await your pictures.
A couple of questions, if I may. You mean a full side taper on the hammers using a table saw, yes? I already have a jig for that. I could also reduce the volume of the felt using a sanding drum in my drill press, and freehanding that. I have a jig for that also. I have done these things in the past.
As for a knuckle, what size do you recommend at the 17 mm. distance?. The Renner replacement shank is a 9 mm. They offer that size and 9.5 mm. Since this is a replacement knuckle and could be any make, what do you favor?
So you estimate 6 to 8 hours time to replace the knuckles, roughly?
Will
Encore Pianos
Compliance? I sort of think I know what you mean, and I can easily do a mockup. Could you be a bit clearer? Thanks,
Will
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dale Erwin
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:50 AM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
Will
Brian Trout
You've already gotten some really good replies. There's not a lot I can add to most of it.
But one thing you did mention, kind of in passing, was the idea of adding a bit more lead to (at least some of) the keys. I kinda cringed when I read that. I'm a piano player and keys with lots of lead in them make for very uncomfortable playing even with light down-weights. I'd much rather have a heavier down-weight with less lead if I had to choose. Getting a large quantity of lead moving from a dead stand-still can be brutal on the fingers, hands, wrists, arms..., particularly with loud or fast passages.
Probably preaching to the choir, but just mentioning...
Best of luck with the project!
Brian
From: sur...@metrocast.net
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:18:13 -0400
David Love
I think you have several options but before doing anything you need to check the strike weights on a few sample notes to see where you are.
1. Move the knuckle which tends to be hard to do accurately no matter what the jig looks like. The margin for error is quite small. That will drop the action ratio to about 6 (.4 for each 1 mm). At 90% of front weight maximum, or thereabouts, and a BW target of 38 grams (say 52 DW in the bass at #1 and 47 DW at #88 friction range from, say, 13 – 8 grams) that would allow you a strike weight of 10.7 grams at note #1 and 5.2 grams at Note #88. Pick your favorite shaped SW curve. Subtract 1.6 grams from the SW to get your hammer weight.
2. Move the balance point of the key by installing a thin strip of veneer behind the balance rail pins (see picture) to lower the key ratio. You will have to install thinner balance rail punchings and relevel the keys. That change can be good for a change to the AR of anywhere from .3 - .6. Almost what you would get from moving the knuckle depending on the key length. On an L maybe you’ll get .4 or something. You will have a similar SW range as the knuckle move, less invasive, don’t have to buy a new set of knuckles or worry about alignment with the jack (assuming it is correct now).
3. Depending on the tone that the piano was delivering (a Renner Blue can be a fairly aggressive hammer on that vintage piano with original board) I would probably consider changing the hammers to something much lighter and a bit softer, lower profile, more like the original hammer, leaving the shanks alone and even going ahead with moving the key balance point to get the ratio down closer to 6, assuming that the 6.68 is accurate. Assuming it was a good tonal fit that would probably be a Ronsen Weickert with a low profile (lower than current 14 lb hammer produces. A 16 set will be too heavy and too bulky, even a 14lb set will be—contact me off list if you want and I’ll give you the specs I think will be necessary).
Dropping the FW specs to about 85% of maximum (Stanwood maximum) will get you probably 4 leads in the bass and the curve then will depend on the shape of your strike weight curve. However, if you get the AR that I think you are likely to get with the veneer method then you will likely be in good standing with a SW range of 10.3 at #1 to 5.2 at #88, again, curve of your choice. That translates to a hammer weight at note #1 of about 8.5 grams and at #88 of 3.4 grams.
4. If you have the option of replacing both shanks and hammers then I would probably still consider something much lighter in weight as I mentioned) and choose the shank that gets you close to 6.0 with the AR. That would be the 17 mm knuckle in this case. At 6.0 AR you would have the option to increase your #1 hammer weight closer to 9 grams ( a little more mass in the bass is probably better tonally). I would up the weight in the treble any, however. The strike weight curve (starting now at 10.7 or so at #1) should simply get a bit steeper. The extra weight at the top of the treble and through the 5th and 6th octave probably won’t help you and will likely hurt you some.
That’s how I see it anyway. There may be other alternatives as well but that’s what comes to mind quickly.
BTW, some weight can be taken off the hammers by hand if needed with shanks attached—see attachment—use a stick or something to push it through otherwise you’ll leave little chunks of flexh on the floor of the shop. A very sharp plane goes without saying.
David Love
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Will Truitt
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:18 AM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
Recently I was called to troubleshoot a rebuilt 1924 Steinway L where the customer was complaining of a very heavy action. The action was rebuilt about a dozen years ago, but little played because it is so tiring to play. The whippens and shanks had been replaced with Renner parts, along with Renner Blue hammers. While the action will need to be regulated, it was not wretchedly out. Quick and dirty down weight checks revealed much of the action in the low to mid 70’s. Because the action has been so little played, the hammers and other actions are in very good condition. She has a rebuilt Steinway B with a far better action parked next to it, so she has played that mostly.
David Love
I forgot to mention re option #4 that changing to a 17 mm knuckle has to be considered along with the jack alignment. You may need to alter the spread to keep it correct which will then change your AR. Something else to consider.
David Love
David Love
Argh, again, correction in #4. Should read “I would not up the weight in the treble…”
David Love
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Love
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:26 AM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
I think you have several options but before doing anything you need to check the strike weights on a few sample notes to see where you are.
1. Move the knuckle which tends to be hard to do accurately no matter what the jig looks like. The margin for error is quite small. That will drop the action ratio to about 6 (.4 for each 1 mm). At 90% of front weight maximum, or thereabouts, and a BW target of 38 grams (say 52 DW in the bass at #1 and 47 DW at #88 friction range from, say, 13 – 8 grams) that would allow you a strike weight of 10.7 grams at note #1 and 5.2 grams at Note #88. Pick your favorite shaped SW curve. Subtract 1.6 grams from the SW to get your hammer weight.
2. Move the balance point of the key by installing a thin strip of veneer behind the balance rail pins (see picture) to lower the key ratio. You will have to install thinner balance rail punchings and relevel the keys. That change can be good for a change to the AR of anywhere from .3 - .6. Almost what you would get from moving the knuckle depending on the key length. On an L maybe you’ll get .4 or something. You will have a similar SW range as the knuckle move, less invasive, don’t have to buy a new set of knuckles or worry about alignment with the jack (assuming it is correct now).
3. Depending on the tone that the piano was delivering (a Renner Blue can be a fairly aggressive hammer on that vintage piano with original board) I would probably consider changing the hammers to something much lighter and a bit softer, lower profile, more like the original hammer, leaving the shanks alone and even going ahead with moving the key balance point to get the ratio down closer to 6, assuming that the 6.68 is accurate. Assuming it was a good tonal fit that would probably be a Ronsen Weickert with a low profile (lower than current 14 lb hammer produces. A 16 set will be too heavy and too bulky, even a 14lb set will be—contact me off list if you want and I’ll give you the specs I think will be necessary).
Dropping the FW specs to about 85% of maximum (Stanwood maximum) will get you probably 4 leads in the bass and the curve then will depend on the shape of your strike weight curve. However, if you get the AR that I think you are likely to get with the veneer method then you will likely be in good standing with a SW range of 10.3 at #1 to 5.2 at #88, again, curve of your choice. That translates to a hammer weight at note #1 of about 8.5 grams and at #88 of 3.4 grams.
4. If you have the option of replacing both shanks and hammers then I would probably still consider something much lighter in weight as I mentioned) and choose the shank that gets you close to 6.0 with the AR. That would be the 17 mm knuckle in this case. At 6.0 AR you would have the option to increase your #1 hammer weight closer to 9 grams ( a little more mass in the bass is probably better tonally). I would not up the weight in the treble any, however. The strike weight curve (starting now at 10.7 or so at #1) should simply get a bit steeper. The extra weight at the top of the treble and through the 5th and 6th octave probably won’t help you and will likely hurt you some.
That’s how I see it anyway. There may be other alternatives as well but that’s what comes to mind quickly.
BTW, some weight can be taken off the hammers by hand if needed with shanks attached—see attachment—use a stick or something to push it through otherwise you’ll leave little chunks of flexh on the floor of the shop. A very sharp plane goes without saying.
David Love
Encore Pianos
Thanks, Brian. I once did an experiment with a 1972 Steinway B with 6 leads a bass key, weighing off at 52 grams. Put a turbo whip with a helper spring on its neighbor at 52 grams, with 2 or 3 leads removed (can’t remember how many now). Night and day difference in feel between the 2 keys, which were the “same” downweight. Had many hands touch both keys. All preferred the one with helper springs and less lead. Less inertia.
I’ve been kinda cringing too. I think I am trying too hard to help my customer take ease on her pocketbook, and may not do enough to ease her discomfort with the action. If so, that’s my fault, not hers. I’m the one who is supposed to know. I am certainly leaning away from my first proposal to her.
Will
a4...@aol.com
It all comes back to mass.
I think that that piano originally had 15.5 mm knuckles and little
bitty hammers. Probably lighter hammer shanks, too. i doubt the leads
are original,either.
What I would do first would be to find what a medium light hammer
changes in this touch. Then begin expanding your FW to see what it
takes. I wouldn't like FW to exceed 25 grams at C4, either alter
geometry or SW to keep it under that.
A capstan change may make sense, but I suspect hammer weight.
Regards,
Ed Foote RPT
-----Original Message-----
From: Encore Pianos <encore...@metrocast.net>
To: pianotech <pian...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 27, 2013 11:37 am
Subject: RE: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
David Weiss
Sent from my iPhone
<image001.jpg>
Recently I was called to troubleshoot a rebuilt 1924 Steinway L where the customer was complaining of a very heavy action. The action was rebuilt about a dozen years ago, but little played because it is so tiring to play. The whippens and shanks had been replaced with Renner parts, along with Renner Blue hammers. While the action will need to be regulated, it was not wretchedly out. Quick and dirty down weight checks revealed much of the action in the low to mid 70’s. Because the action has been so little played, the hammers and other actions are in very good condition. She has a rebuilt Steinway B with a far better action parked next to it, so she has played that mostly.
I have Nick Gravagne’s most recent version of his Action Geometry program, which I think is pretty sweet. I took my measures off the action parts and keys, and dropped them into the program. Below is a screen capture of its calculations:
<image002.png>
Ron Nossaman
> while you are at it.... reduce the weight of the heavy Renner blues.
> Sanding the sides or some other method. There is a table saw jig for
> this that I have yet to make but need to.
of a hung hammer with a table saw jig. I see a lot of claims, but I'd
like it explained. See drawing illustrating why it won't work without
multiple passes at different angles, or cutting through the shank.
Ron N
Encore Pianos
Hi David:
Thanks for the comprehensiveness of your reply. More food for thought.
Of course, the piano is a 2 hour drive each way in distance. So perhaps I should change my approach to my customer since she is not using the piano very much and has another at hand. There is enough going on with this action that I should bring it in and “play” with the various scenarios that you and others are offering, and then decide which things and in what combination will best resurrect this action.
Remarks and questions to your points:
1. Moving the knuckle from 15.5 mm to 17 mm. I have some 17 mm shanks laying around and can pop off the # 1 hammer and hang it on my sample to “play” with in my scenario, after weighing it. Same for note 88. That will give me an idea what the DW, UW, SW, and BW values will come in real world. And how much difference that will make at the front of the key.
2. This will be relatively easy to do and not too expensive. I’ll be leveling keys anyway in the regulation, so this will not add too much time. I would probably start my experimentation here, just to see how far it will take me by itself. The hammer bore is substantially correct, and with the correct blow distance, the back of the jack makes a nice straight line with the back of the core on these Renner replacement parts. I don’t know how much that will vary with a 17 mm. shank.
3. The piano is bright but not outrageous. I’m not too concerned about voicing it down. I agree with your assessment about the Blues not being as good a choice as a softer, lighter hammer like the 14 lb. Weikert felt. I doubt this is something she would consider, since this ramps up the cost of the job considerably. If I were going to make this choice, I would also go ahead and purchase a 17 mm. shank to go along with it. That would be giving the piano exactly what it needs, and is what should have been done originally by the rebuilder.
4. Hammer weights in general are something I pay attention to, particularly as we go up into the treble. What you are talking about is something closer to what the original hammers were.
I’ll take your word that shimming behind the balance rail pins will make a meaningful difference by lowering the key ratio. But it still doesn’t address the compromised shank ratio, which remains as before. Shouldn’t I consider doing both the shim and the knuckle move?
I like the planer jig.
Thanks for your comments.
Will
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Love
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:26 PM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Encore Pianos
The key ratio is good at around 2 to 1, and the capstan is well centered under the felt. Would you still consider moving the capstan? (Towards the belly rail, I presume, to improve the key ratio).
Will
Encore Pianos
Your comments are accurate.
Will
-----Original Message-----
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Nossaman
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:10 PM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
Dale Erwin
Dale Erwin
As you list
Sent from my iPhone
<image001.jpg>
Recently I was called to troubleshoot a rebuilt 1924 Steinway L where the customer was complaining of a very heavy action. The action was rebuilt about a dozen years ago, but little played because it is so tiring to play. The whippens and shanks had been replaced with Renner parts, along with Renner Blue hammers. While the action will need to be regulated, it was not wretchedly out. Quick and dirty down weight checks revealed much of the action in the low to mid 70’s. Because the action has been so little played, the hammers and other actions are in very good condition. She has a rebuilt Steinway B with a far better action parked next to it, so she has played that mostly.
I have Nick Gravagne’s most recent version of his Action Geometry program, which I think is pretty sweet. I took my measures off the action parts and keys, and dropped them into the program. Below is a screen capture of its calculations:
<image002.png>
Encore Pianos
Thanks, Dale.
David Love
David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Nossaman
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:10 AM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
Isaac OLEG
You gave nice description of the possibilities. For the key , the trick seem to add pulley in time, I wonder if you have similar result with a half punching glued under the balance hole.
About geometry, whippen vs jack, I thought for long that
The knive mark was useless. In the end it shows the limit for jack position. If I pass the knive line then I move the spread. A simple tip for the whippen geometry.
I am not fan of the touch with small rollers.
David Love
Yes, I think you should. Tell her you want to look into various options. In the shop that will be easier and then you can take your time to figure out costs/benefits and give her a report. You charge a fee for the analysis and if she decides to do nothing fine, you have your analysis fee. You can include the fee or some portion of it in the job if you wish to give her some incentive to go ahead.
With respect to moving the knuckles there are some things to consider and I’m not at all sold on the idea of moving knuckles. Is it really that much of a time and cost saver to move the knuckles rather than replace the whole shank assembly. The clear benefit of putting on a new shank is accuracy. I’ve moved knuckles before in a pinch but when 1 mm error produces a change of .4 in the AR you better be damn accurate. I find it difficult. One-half mm error in either direction can produce a variance of .4 between those two notes. Too much for me. The cost difference is minimal, in my opinion.
When you consider you have to remove the shanks anyway, plus cut the old knuckle off, jig up, cut the slots, check the distance on each slot (where will your go no go line be for a redo btw, .25 mm, .5 mm?? There will be some variance I guarantee it), buy a new set of knuckles (the cost is not insignificant for quality knuckles, it’s the most expensive part of the assembly), glue them in, reinstall, space, regulate, etc, are you better off than just popping the hammers off, saving the shanks you remove for another day, installing the correct set (yes, she has to pay for them but the cost difference between that and the knuckles is relatively small and a small percentage of the job), travel, rehang the hammers and go through the same spacing and regulating? In both cases you’ll have to do a new weigh off and probably deal with the hammer weight. Removing the hammers and shanks, installing a new set, travel and hang the hammers back on can easily be done in a day and still take the significant other for a nice lunch. You’ll need additional time either way to deal with the hammer weight plus do a new weigh off.
The only reason I can think of to relocate knuckles is if you find that where you need to put them is at a distance that you can’t buy, like 18 mm, but that begins to create other problems, so even then I probably wouldn’t do it.
I think in the end you are better off rehanging on new shanks. In my opinion it’s not even close when you take everything into consideration.
I would caution you about trying to be the hero and save her a couple of dollars in this case. You may not save her anything significant, you may end up with an inferior job, or one you are not as satisfied with, you might even end up spending more time when you include trying to fix your own fix. Not worth it. Do it right and don’t look back. As has often been said, don’t make her problem yours. Help her to solve hers in the most professional way possible. That’s your job.
David Love
David Love
The half punching is not as effective as the strip of veneer for changing the ratio.
Agreed on the jack line. Once you start moving too far away from 90 degrees to the shank you start creating problems.
If a 17 mm knuckle gets installed you will have to use a large knuckle anyway or you will have to raise the capstan. That could be a good or a bad thing depending on how things are set up now.
Do you not like the smaller knuckle because of the feel at escapement?
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:01 PM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
David Love
David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com
David Love
You will increase the spread. As the knuckle moves out on the shank your adjustment of the jack will have the top leaning toward the distal side. So you need to move the wippen flange out along with the knuckle to keep the jack angle consistent. You have a little wiggle room but you would be moving the knuckle 1.5 mm, which is quite a bit. Of course, you want to check the spread and jack angle now first. It might be wrong with the current configuration, leaning, perhaps, too much to the proximal side. Not likely but could happen.
David Love
Al Guecia/Allied PianoCraft
This action should probably have a 17 mm. shank, but it doesn’t.
Hi Brother Will...and it could easily have 17mm with a days work or less.
She is a person of means, but would prefer to avoid the expense of replacing the shanks (although the bore distance is close enough and there is little enough wear that I could remount the hammers on new 17 mm. shanks.
Again not necessary
So if I am going to get the downweights to a reasonable level, it seems I must explore other alternatives.
Another possibility is to move the knuckles further out on the original shanks, although I have never done this.
Yes... lets move the knuckles. It is so easy and fantastic way to get a huge improvement with minimal fuss and extra cost to the client. I have saved many sets of incorrectly chosen/ installed "original dimension " parts. I have a knuckle slotting jig. Take off the shanks and cut off the old knuckles on a band saw. Clean up residue with a motor tool. Cut a new slot in the correct position on the shank and simply slide in a new knuckle with a bit of glue. Reassemble and regulate. But first, while you are at it.... reduce the weight of the heavy Renner blues. Sanding the sides or some other method. There is a table saw jig for this that I have yet to make but need to.
Douglas Gregg
How thin. Can you give a thickness that works well?
Doug Gregg
Isaac OLEG
it can be a cardboard as well , or a leather,strip I glue it lightly so it stay in place (at last at the end and begin) 1 mm thick may be 4 mm large. no much space between the screw and the upper lip, but the screw take their place in the strip if it is too large.
Isaac OLEG
Isaac OLEG
Le mercredi 27 mars 2013 21:28:49 UTC+1, David Love a écrit :
Yes, I learned to push the hammer through the plane with a specially notched "stick" basically. Took only 3 or 4 shaved fingers to convince me. That's pretty fast for me.
The half punching is not as effective as the strip of veneer for changing the ratio.
Agreed on the jack line. Once you start moving too far away from 90 degrees to the shank you start creating problems.
If a 17 mm knuckle gets installed you will have to use a large knuckle anyway or you will have to raise the capstan. That could be a good or a bad thing depending on how things are set up now.
Do you not like the smaller knuckle because of the feel at escapement?
David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com
Yes David the letoff is not so nice, too much friction in the end, just good for relatively light hammers.(plus the problem with drop screws sometime)
Isaac OLEG
++++++++++++++++ERASED
Isaac OLEG
Encore Pianos
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your remarks and the detail of your comments.
We’ve all come behind someone who did not do the job right, or did not do enough. I don’t want to be that guy. I’ve been getting paranoid that I was putting myself in the position to be the second guy to not take it far enough. So I’m listening keenly.
Your argument to replace the shanks and hang the old Blues on them instead of putting new knuckles on the old shanks is compelling to me. Thanks for the tart reminder to do it right – good on ya.
Encore Pianos
Will
Encore Pianos
I thought so. When you are moving the whippen flange to increase the spread, how much would you move it? Just to 112.5 mm. or more? Or do I need to move it out that full 1.5 mm? That’s quite a bit to shim. What would you use for shim material when it is that much? Is there a balancing act between the correct spread and the jack knuckle alignment? I would think that the spread distance would be more important.
Ron Nossaman
> I have a question about the "thin" veneer behind the balance rail pin.
> How thin. Can you give a thickness that works well?
depressed. The center of rotation starts on the edge of the punching
toward the back of the key, and ends up at the front of the punching as
the key bottoms out. If the center of rotation changes, so does the key
ratio. The veneer keeps the rotational center from going forward of the
pin, lowering the ratio through the second half of the stroke, so
lowering the average key ratio for the whole stroke.
Ron N
Encore Pianos
Thanks, Isaac.
Will
Isaac OLEG
Dale Erwin
Encore Pianos
How does moving the capstans stack up against the veneer strip as a means of achieving the same goal for the key ratio? Or will the effects within the rest of the system be slightly different? I’ve moved capstans before so that’s no biggy, but the veneer strip holds some charm because it would easier to do and less expensive. I can calculate the effect that moving the capstan would have on the key ratio, but am less clear on how to do that for the veneer shim.
Will
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dale Erwin
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:19 PM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
David Love
Isaac OLEG <isaac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Le mercredi 27 mars 2013 21:28:49 UTC+1, David Love a écrit :
Yes, I learned to push the hammer through the plane with a specially notched "stick" basically. Took only 3 or 4 shaved fingers to convince me. That's pretty fast for me.
The half punching is not as effective as the strip of veneer for changing the ratio.
Agreed on the jack line. Once you start moving too far away from 90 degrees to the shank you start creating problems.
If a 17 mm knuckle gets installed you will have to use a large knuckle anyway or you will have to raise the capstan. That could be a good or a bad thing depending on how things are set up now.
Do you not like the smaller knuckle because of the feel at escapement?
David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com
Yes David the letoff is not so nice, too much friction in the end, just good for relatively light hammers.(plus the problem with drop screws sometime)
David Love
Douglas Gregg <class...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have a question about the "thin" veneer behind the balance rail pin.
How thin. Can you give a thickness that works well?
On 3/27/13, Al Guecia/Allied PianoCraft <alliedpi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dale, I would love a photo of the jig. Don't need it now, but I know I will.
> :~)
>
> Al -
> High Point, NC
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 10:33 AM, Dale Erwin <da...@erwinspiano.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> replacing the shanks (although the bore distance is close enough and there
>> is little enough wear that I could remount the hammers on new 17 mm.
>>
>> Again not necessary
>>
>> So if I am going to get the downweights to a reasonable level, it seems
>> I must explore other alternatives.
>>
>> shanks, although I have never done this.
>>
Dale Erwin
David Love
The best way is to test. You don’t have to lay an entire strip, just one little segment on one note will give you an indication. How it compares with moving the capstan will depend on several things. Can you move the capstan without modifying the wippen heel, does moving the capstan have other consequences in terms of lines of convergence (a minor point, IMO), is it reversible if you don’t like it or something else changes down the road. The veneer method is easily to do (except for releveling the keys) reversible, doesn’t have any other problems associated with it in terms of the wippen heel. Calculating the AR with the veneer strip is no different than anything else, you remeasure your key in/key out based on the balance point given by the veneer location. Test to verify.
David Love
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Encore Pianos
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 6:20 PM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
How does moving the capstans stack up against the veneer strip as a means of achieving the same goal for the key ratio? Or will the effects within the rest of the system be slightly different? I’ve moved capstans before so that’s no biggy, but the veneer strip holds some charm because it would easier to do and less expensive. I can calculate the effect that moving the capstan would have on the key ratio, but am less clear on how to do that for the veneer shim.
Will
David Love
I like to save customers money when possible but not just for the sake of saving money. Your experience may well be different from mine but I have not found that moving knuckles is easy in terms of accuracy, not the kind you really need. Yeah, you can get the job done but it won’t be as accurate, at least I don’t think so. Just the run out alone on a table saw can account for a greater margin of error than you might want. I don’t know how they index the shank in the factory for accuracy but it seems pretty good to me. I can’t imagine getting that kind of accuracy from a table saw and a hand-made jig.
Agreed, I don’t generally have that much use for 15.5 mm knuckles either but then I probably am on the lighter side of hammer weight selection than you so I may have more opportunities. Still, being able to save the 15.5 knuckles was not a primary motive or factor in the overall cost considerations. I do use 16 mm knuckles with some regularity however. While my approach has evolved over the past couple of years, I don’t generally target hammer weights on original soundboards of that age much more than what was there to begin with. With lower impedance characteristics I just don’t want a heavier denser hammer and a heavier or bulky hammer that is less dense presents other tonal problems especially in the top half of the piano. Often I try not to exceed it at all (again, tonal reasons) which generally means I’m fine with 6.0 action ratios on those pianos. This action at 6.68 is high. But I don’t often go to 5.5 on these pianos (or many others for that matter except maybe concert instruments), preferring somewhere between 5.7 and 5.9 as a general target, certainly for most older Steinways with original boards. If I’m putting in a new board then things can change (though I try not to change things too much). That means generally a pretty light hammer, again, selected for tonal reasons, not touchweight reasons. Touchweight requirements follow tonal requirements (whenever possible). I try not to do it in reverse order. Sadly, pianos don’t always cooperate.
I thought I read Will suggesting 6-8 hours for moving the knuckle and everything associated with it. Not a bad guess IMO but changing the shanks and rehanging the hammers doesn’t take any longer than that. I don’t have my current price list of Renner at hand and don’t like to discuss wholesale prices on the list but the price of a set of knuckles from Renner is almost half of the cost of the entire shank, or close to it, when I last checked. You can buy cheaper knuckles but I don’t like to. The quality of the material is important for various reasons, friction, wear, but noise being primary among them. I can’t see the cost in terms of time and materials being anywhere near half unless there’s an efficiency problem with one method or the other.
In this case we weren’t talking about replacing hammers but just putting the original back on. I don’t know if that’s the best thing or not. Will hasn’t yet talked about the tone. If the tone is an issue then that would change things some but I don’t think for me it would be in the direction of moving the knuckles.
I realize others may approach this differently. I’m not trying to be that dogmatic about it. I’m just trying to outline all options and considerations as I think about them and be realistic about procedures and the real time that they take, not what we imagine. Many times we do things, like moving knuckles, because on the surface it seems less invasive, easier, more efficient, less work. In this case, when you really look at all the little details, I don’t think it is.
David Love
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dale Erwin
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:19 PM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
David Love
I disagree with that. There are several ways to effectively change the KR without new keys. Moving capstans is the typical procedure (I’ve done it successfully for years) but veneer also works in a pinch or if you think you may want to reverse course. I don’t see any problem with pulley keys from this method.
I also disagree on the hammers required for a 15.5 mm knuckle (roller). Underfelt has nothing to do with it. A lighter hammer will allow the development of upper partials to a greater degree (probably not a bad thing on an old soundboard). But that is easily compensated for by using a hammer that has less density, properly profiled and is not pressed into something way beyond what is necessary. In fact, a lighter, trimmer hammer in this case should be somewhat less dense for that very reason. You need to order the set with the proper specs to get the tone you want and there are other considerations and options as well.
Recall that the original hammer on this piano was lightweight and relatively soft. Probably a pretty good match. This is early American hammer manufacturing, you cannot compare it with current European hammer design and execution. They are very different approaches. Lightweight hammers pressed to the density of a larger, designed-to-be-more-dense hammer will not be good and require a lot of needling to get things more compliant and get the dynamic range and timbral balance (partial development) that is required. You are better off starting with something closer to your goal. Lightweight, high density hammers are a no-no, as are heavy and bulky low density hammers. They don’t work on much of anything that I can think of, well, unless the piano is just a tweeter or just a woofer and never the twain shall meet.
David Love
David Love
1.5 mm isn’t that much if you need to go the entire distance. You only need to move the top of the flange, btw, that’s where the wippen center pin is. It’s not necessary to move the entire flange out. The correct spread is for the jack knuckle alignment primarily. Increasing the spread (as you will see if you play with your spreadsheet) will lower your action ratio but that’s not why I would do it unless , of course, you have to. You can use a strip of veneer or thick cardstock, the fiberboard from Steinway (part 7999) is 1/32 of an inch, .79mm. The box material that Renner shanks come in is 1.00 mm thick. Cut it into thin strips (sharp utility knife) and tack to the tubular frame under the top of the flange only .
David Love
David Love
BTW if you first cut the Renner box material into 1” wide strips you can lay a couple of strips of double sided tape on it to build it up to the right thickness. Then cut that 1” piece into thin strips (about 1/8 wide or so) and they are ready to stick on the rails. No muss, no fuss.
Encore Pianos
Got it, Dale. So there is more gain from moving the capstan towards the balance rail pivot in that it not only changes the key ratio to quantified effect, but also changes the relationship to the whip center. The veneer shimming method would not affect the relationship of the capstan to the whip center, even as the key ratio is somewhat improved.
Isaac OLEG
Encore Pianos
My question still remains. With the veneer shim, where exactly are you placing the fulcrum point? I know it is not at the center of the balance rail pin anymore. I would like to establish that so I can make it part of my calculations for whatever I end up doing.
I will test on a single note or two, and understood that it is as simple as you outline.
As for the capstan heel, it is well centered over the capstan. These whippens are the fixed heel type, so the glue joint would have to be broken and the heel moved and reglued, depending on how much I moved the capstan.
So here is another question: just how much can I move the capstan towards the balance rail pivot point without necessitating the move of the capstan heel along with it?
Some time ago I made a little sliding jig with a capstan in it that I can slide back and forth on the top of the key (capstan removed, tape In place, and test from there. That, of course, is reversible. Or at least until I’ve drilled and installed new capstans.
Will
Encore Pianos
The board is original. The tone is somewhat bright and uneven, but the piano has not been voiced for a dozen years either. I’ve voiced more sets of Blues than I could count over the years. In broad terms, I don’t have all that far to go to bring the tone down to where I want it to be, it is more a matter of evening things out. As such, the tone of this set is not holding me back from moving them onto new shanks or changing the knuckles, since the hammer bore is reasonably close. If I were to change the hammers, that would be based more on issues of weight rather than tone. If I re-use these hammers, I will put them on a diet of fully tapering the sides on my table saw jig and perhaps coving out the tail more before hanging on new shanks. I would do the same if I am keeping them on the shanks and moving the knuckles, albeit less conveniently.
Will
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Love
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:15 PM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Encore Pianos
Al Guecia/Allied PianoCraft
BTW if you first cut the Renner box material into 1” wide strips you can lay a couple of strips of double sided tape on it to build it up to the right thickness. Then cut that 1” piece into thin strips (about 1/8 wide or so) and they are ready to stick on the rails. No muss, no fuss.David Love
David Love
Ron Overs
Will wrote:
>. . . So here is another question: just how much can I move the
>the move of the capstan heel along with it?
hammer centre to knuckle distance is generally a preferred figure for
moving the action ratio down from some of the very high ratios we
find in earlier actions.
Generally, I prefer to move the capstan to a new position to achieve
the desired ratio. This will often involve replacing the wippen heel
to place the capstan/wippen heel contact on the line of centres at
half key dip. I have found that some Steinways have heels which are a
bit on the deep side, so moving the capstan toward the balance will
improve the friction situation without changing the heel depth,
provided that we don't run out of heel base for the capstan to rest
against.
I have a selection of wood blocks which can be attached to a wippen
with tape (after the original heel is removed), and a set of
short-shanked capstans which are mounted into small dummy capstan
risers, so that they can be attached to a key and wippen with tape,
to test for the optimum heel depth and capstan position. Watching the
heel and capstan contact point (with a strong light) as the parts
move will reveal if the heel is too shallow or too deep. Its pretty
easy to change out different blocks until a point of minimum friction
is observed.
If the wippens are being changed, then a simple solution to the new
heel depth and position is to order wippens with the desired
specification. Tokiwa can do this for little extra cost, and it makes
a custom solution quite manageable. The riser blocks for capstans
will need to be made in house, but they can be made as a strip and
glued to all keys at the same time, after-which they can be cut apart
and trimmed flush with the key.
We recently rebuilt a Bechstein model B with a tied-wippen action,
replacing the wippens with heels moved to a new position and with a
depth of 16 mm. It worked very nicely, even the piano was pretty good
from a tonal perspective with its new 6 note tenor bi-chord section.
Bechstein Bs are generally way down on my list of favourites, but
this 1900 unit was quite a surprising outcome with its new running
gear.
Ron O.
--
OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY
Grand Piano Manufacturers
_______________________
Web http://overspianos.com.au
mailto:r...@overspianos.com.au
_______________________
A web page with images of recent work and almost-audio-CD quality mp3
sound files of the Overs piano can be found at;
http://overspianos.com.au/more_info.htm
So put on your headphones, plug them into your freshly restarted
computer and sit back to over 20 minutes of pure piano.
_______________________
David Love
If you plug in the numbers in the Gravagne tool that you have you will find that moving the capstan 4 mm will drop your AR to 6.05, very similar to the choice of a 17 mm knuckle which drops it to 6.09.
If that puts the capstan into contact with the wooden edge of the wippen heel you can either relocate it (see sequence below) or cover the entire bottom with a strip of action cloth which covers the wood front.
But there are other considerations, and important ones. The inertial force in the system is an additive one and is a function of the three levers each contributing their own part. In the key we know that the inertial force is related to the placement of leads, for example. The contribution to the inertial force given by the hammer assembly is some 7 times that of the key (about 60 times that of the wippen). The knuckle placement relative to the point of rotation and the hammer mass are the determining factors. A move of .5 mm of the knuckle will result in a drop in the inertial force by about 6%. So a move of 1.5 mm to a 17 mm knuckle will reduce the inertial force by 18%. Given that it appears that you have a relatively heavy hammer on there that will be significant no matter what the balance weight says.
Therefore, a move of the capstan to achieve the action ratio you required is not the same as moving the knuckle (or replacing with a new 17 mm shank).
What the inertia should be in the system is another question, more difficult to answer, of course. Also, reducing the hammer mass will also change the inertial force in the hammer assembly. There may well be some optimal relationship between knuckle placement and hammer mass in order to achieve some desired level of inertial force at least as far as the contribution from the hammer assembly, although total inertia is undoubtedly important as well. Intuitively it makes sense. We don’t hang concert grand hammers on 15.5 mm knuckle placements and neither do we hang ultra light hammers on 18 mm knuckle placements, not without some unwanted effects.
There should probably be some scale that correlates hammer mass (or strikeweight for our purposes) and knuckle placement. Within a certain range of strikeweights on a targeted note, say note 40 for example, we might be able to determine the optimum strikeweight range in order to achieve some targeted inertial force, at least as in so far as the hammer assembly contributes. We can then extrapolate the strikeweight curve from there. Better would be to create a strikeweight curve based on tonal requirements, determine the knuckle placement for the inertial force from the hammer assembly and then reverse engineer the key ratio to get the overall desired action ratio.
There is a good article and bit of research done by Roy Mallory worth reading that I’m spending a fair amount of time with at the moment http://pianobytes.com/ActionAnalysisinertiaa.htm . The math is a stretch for me but a careful reading yields some very good information.
Bottom line is this, a capstan move is not equivalent to a knuckle move in terms of inertia. While you may achieve the same action ratio the actions will not perform the same. While I don’t know what the strikeweight curve looks like on this (that would be a useful bit of information) I would be more inclined to change the shank with a new knuckle first. Then you can decide to remove material from the hammer or, you might consider a modest move of the capstan of 2 mm which will bring the action ratio down to a very desirable 5.79 and probably allow you to leave well enough alone with the hammer weight.
You have many choices.
David Love
Here’s a sequence on moving the wippen heel on a Renner USA wippen. As you can see this one had to move back for some reason. Don’t remember why now. There’s undoubtedly a better way to hold that heel for the band saw or a sliding jig of some sort but this worked.
David Love
Isaac OLEG
Isaac OLEG
Paul McCloud
Paul McCloud
San Diego
Stephen Grattan
From: David Love <davidlo...@comcast.net>
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, March 28, 2013 10:51:57 AM
Subject: RE: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
Al Guecia/Allied PianoCraft
Here’s a sequence on moving the wippen heel on a Renner USA wippen. As you can see this one had to move back for some reason. Don’t remember why now. There’s undoubtedly a better way to hold that heel for the band saw or a sliding jig of some sort but this worked.
David Love
jim ialeggio
Here’s a sequence on moving the wippen heel on a Renner USA wippen. As you can see this one had to move back for some reason. Don’t remember why now. There’s undoubtedly a better way to hold that heel for the band saw or a sliding jig of some sort but this worked.
Heel position and knuckle position can be, 1- experimented with without fuss or cutting parts apart, 2- optimized in terms of both heel front-to-back placement and heel height (by simply moving the heel about or choosing a different heel height, then play with your action model), 3- accomplished in a very short time by simply gluing the chosen heel at the chosen location. Same with the knuckle.
Jim Ialeggio
Encore Pianos
I’m planning on dropping numbers into the program with various scenarios this evening and see what it tells me. Just been keeping up with the posts so far, there are a lot of them and a lot of good information. Thanks, guys.
Here is where I think this is likely headed for me.
I will start by moving the knuckle out to 17 mm., whether that is by knuckle relocation or replacing the shanks. I am leaning towards replacing the shanks presently.
With the hammers removed from the 15.5 mm. shanks, it will be easy to put them on a diet by doing a full taper of the sides in my jig on the tablesaw. These hammers are somewhat tapered on the sides from below the felt to the tail, as done on a disc sander by the rebuilder. Also, I can deepen the cove somewhat on my oscillating spindle sander in another jig. I’m not aiming to make them skeletal, but taper them down to about 7 mm. wide tail. Doing this will lower the hammer weight and lower the inertia in the systems for the reasons you describe.
Shim whippens out 1.5 mm. to maintain jack knuckle core alignment with the new 17 mm. knuckle. By itself, this is not meaningful if we maintain the capstan in the same position.
But, later in your commentary, you make the suggestion of moving the capstan towards the balance rail 2 mm., which brings the action ratio down to a desirable 5.79. It occurs to me that if you combine the 2 mm. capstan move in one direction with the 1.5 mm move of the capstan heel in the other (which occurs when you shim the whippen flange), you end up with 3.5 mm change in relationship between the two. I’m guessing this would require removing and relocating the capstan heel to center it over the capstan, yes?
Of course, the shim behind the balance rail may add enough to the total equation to preclude the necessity of moving the capstan.
Doing these things would preclude the necessity to add any new leads, and hopefully allow the removal of some, further reducing inertia.
Until I get the action in the shop, I cannot quantify enough things with sufficient exactness, but I’m beginning to get a feel for where the ballpark is located.
Encore Pianos
You are talking about the Tokiwa capstan heels with the dowels, yes? Not a bad idea. Would be pretty quick to do. $59.00 for a set from Pianotek.
Will
Encore Pianos
I’ve done this with the WNG parts. It works.
Will
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of jim ialeggio
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:57 PM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
David Love
Encore Pianos <encore...@metrocast.net> wrote:
You are talking about the Tokiwa capstan heels with the dowels, yes? Not a bad idea. Would be pretty quick to do. $59.00 for a set from Pianotek.
Will
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:10 PM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
Paul McCloud
San Diego
----- Original Message -----
From: "Isaac OLEG" <isaac...@gmail.com>
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
I wonder if you thought of using an and air iron (with 2 heating plates parallel) so to have a softened glue ? Was the dismonting as easy, without chips ?
I use the Vynil glue Renner uses on his actions (certainly a German glue I have an idea of what it is but not sure, so I buy them by Kg)
This glue set fast and is hard enough, it can be used for a lot of things (while I favor hide glue for many things also, once PVA glue (?) have been used we have no choice but using a similar one)
Yes a gig to cut the recess would be better, the one I did I had problems to have the heell square
Generally thinking the most important thing in those old actions is to have a good match between hammer bore, roller and whippen positions
Then looking for a key dip between 9.5 and 10.3 , is another part of the job (even if it may be examined at the same time)
9.5 is OK if the hammers are not too heavy , I even like that on old pianos eventually. What makes the key deepness sensation is more in the jack to roller relation in my opinion, for instance on Foersters, the aftertouch is 0.75mm but the sensation is the one of a 2 mm aftertouch. This is due to undercentering and jack farther on the back in my opinion.(or is it due to longer friction moment, ?)
Greetings
Le jeudi 28 mars 2013 15:51:57 UTC+1, David Love a écrit :
Encore Pianos
Cool. Thanks for the clarification.
Will
Isaac OLEG
David Love
Changing the weight will change the tone somewhat. Might be an improvement in the treble, maybe not in the bass. But I’ll take you at your word that the tone is fine. I’ll respond to your other post.
David Love
David Love
You’ve received many suggestions and it can be confusing. Apologies if I’ve contributed to that confusion. You’ll undoubtedly get different suggestions from different people. I can only tell you how I would approach it.
I tend to approach these things very holistically. Meaning I want the entire picture before I do anything. We don’t really have one yet. This is all based on your measurements being accurate, that the current AR is actually 6.68. An accurate measurement of the strike weights, balance weight and front weight on some samples would be very helpful, in fact necessary.
For example, at 75 grams DW that balance weight could easily be 60. Let’s say that’s what it is. To get it to 40 you will have to take 20 grams off the BW which would mean either adding 20 grams of lead to the FW (not a good option given your description), or a change in the AR to 5.2. Not likely or good unless you like 11 mm key dip. Even changing the AR to 5.79 will only drop the balance weight to something like 48 grams (add friction to get your DW). So you will likely have to remove weight from the hammer.
At 5.79 AR you will have to remove 1 gram of material to reduce the BW by 5.79 grams. So to drop it even to 40 grams from 48 grams will require the removal of 1.38 grams (8/5.79). That’s a lot especially in the upper end of the piano. Of course, maybe 75 DW is not reflective of the actual BW on the piano. Don’t know, but you’ll need to know. Once you know all the facts then you can proceed to make your decision along these lines.
1. I would make the first priority tone. That governs everything else. If the piano is really where you want it presently then I would be cautious about removing too much weight from the hammers. Removing weight will change the tone. It might be for the better but it might not. You’ll have to decide about that. Weight is a tonal consideration first, you then take into consideration what you can do with the action to accommodate it. Personally I would be surprised if the hammer wasn’t more than you need tonally but you’ll have to decide that. Once you establish the hammer weights then you can proceed to step number two, getting the touch to cooperate with the weight you’ve chosen. As I mentioned, it would be very helpful to know the current strike weights, bw and fw on some sample notes. Without that you are shooting in the dark.
2. I think you will definitely have to go to a 17 mm knuckle and you already know my thoughts about new shanks versus moving the knuckles.
3. A change to 17 mm will only bring the AR down to something just over 6. Not enough to get rid of lead with the current strike weights. So you have to choose between taking the hammers down in weight (easier to do with them removed—another argument for installing new shanks), or you will have to further reduce the leverage. Probably you will have to do both.
4. At 6.09 AR (the result of the 17 mm knuckle) your hammer weight at note #1 will not likely be able to exceed 9.4 grams, at note #1, 7.7 grams at #40, 4.6 grams at note #80. Draw your curve from there. Maybe that’s doable, maybe not. Weigh those hammers and see. If you can achieve that you will probably be left with something like front weights of 37 grams, 27 grams, 8 grams, respectively (#1, #40, #80) for a 40 gram balance weight (medium high my target is usually 37 or 38 grams). Those front weights are not maxed out but pretty near, about 10% short of Stanwood published maximums. Gives you a bit of wiggle room but it’s still on the high side. Again based on limited information.
5. If you move the capstan 2 mm or use the balance rail shim you can probably drop the AR down to about 5.79 +/- depending on what the shim actually does. At that AR you can increase the allowable weight of the hammers to 10 grams at note 1, 8.2 grams at note #40 and 5 grams at note 80. Remember, to get the strike weight add 1.8 grams to the hammer weight for full diameter shanks and 1.6 or so for the tapered shanks. This would still be BW of 40 grams and 90% of front weight. That will likely get you closer to the actual weight of the hammers, or having to take less off which will have less impact on the tone. But the BW is still slightly high as is the FW, certainly better than what it is now but on the high side.
6. A 4 mm move of the capstan (probably out of reach for the shim) would drop the AR down to about 5.5 (these capstan moves are, btw, in conjunction with the 17 mm knuckle). There you could keep the same weight in the hammers as in #5 and drop the front weights by another 10% to about 80 % of maximum. A nice target. You would probably have to cover the wippen heel with felt or move it. At 45 mm of blow distance you’d probably regulate the dip just short of 10.5 mm. Deep but acceptable.
This last scenario then gets you something that is likely close to the current hammer weights, a slight drop in lead in the key, a 40 gram balance weight (figure a DW range of 54 to about 49), and a 17 mm knuckle combining appropriately with a heavier hammer for inertia considerations from the hammer assembly.
Without changing the hammer to a lighter weight hammer (something I would personally want to consider for tonal reasons—customer involved in that decision—based on my experience with pianos like this from this vintage, this is probably the best scenario. If you did decide to change the hammers to something lighter then you are starting the thinking process over depending on what your hammer weights (or strike weights) turn out to be. Everything has to work together. Jumping in and just starting to change things before you have an idea what the outcome will be is asking for trouble.
In the words of that great philosopher, Bilbo Baggins, short cuts make for long delays.
A sample survey of the action, 6-8 notes (DW, UW, FW, SW), along with a careful measuring of the action ratio by Nick’s spread sheet method will definitely help to narrow the focus.
Hope that helps.
David Love
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Encore Pianos
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:37 PM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
I’m planning on dropping numbers into the program with various scenarios this evening and see what it tells me. Just been keeping up with the posts so far, there are a lot of them and a lot of good information. Thanks, guys.
Here is where I think this is likely headed for me.
I will start by moving the knuckle out to 17 mm., whether that is by knuckle relocation or replacing the shanks. I am leaning towards replacing the shanks presently.
…snip
Isaac OLEG
I have lost a complete answer I did wrote...
Encore Pianos
You and others have been very helpful, and I have moved towards clarity rather than confusion with your assistance and that of others. Much thanks.
I won’t have the fuller picture until I get the action on the workbench in the shop and spend a few hours filling in the remaining blanks with measurements, then do what if scenarios on a few notes to get some real world answers. But I now have a broad frame of reference from within which I can make a combination of choices that will predictably bring about the results I am seeking to create for the benefit of my customer. And I’ll need touch weight measures to fill in the blanks for strike weights, balance weights, etc. that you suggest.
1. I used Renner Blues almost exclusively for a number of years. My standard procedure was a full side taper, coving, curving the tails, head bore, tail bore, etc. etc. In short, starting with a blank from which to perform all aspects of hammer shaping and boring in order to have complete control over the process. My hammer choices are different these days, softer and lighter - more toward the Weikert felts in tonal preference. But I am familiar with the changes to tone and touchweight that such dietary measures bring to the Blues from long experience. It is not a shot in the dark for me, and it is likely that reducing the hammer weight is needed anyway. When I get the action in, I’ll pop off about 3 hammers from the ends and the middle and weigh them. That will establish my starting point for weight and give me an idea of whether I can get the hammer weight of #1 down to the low 9’s and #88 to somewhere in the mid 4’s. I am very aware of the effects that hammer weight has on tone, particularly in the treble. If I replace the hammers and shanks, that will easily double the cost of the job to the customer. Moreover, if I made that choice I would want to take advantage of that and set things up right all the way through, which adds to the time and cost. I can offer her this alternative along with that of reusing the hammers in the context we have discussed. That said, my experience voicing Blues tells me these hammers are within my range of control.
2. 17 mm. Yup, agreed.
3. Already anticipating that it is likely I will have to do both. That’s ok.
4. Won’t know where this sits until the action is in my shop.
5. I will start with the balance rail shim test, see where that goes, and make my choices from there as to whether that is sufficient or moving capstans and possibly capstan heels becomes necessary.
6. This is attractive in that appears that it would actually allow me to remove some lead from the keys from this already heavily leaded action and reduce the inertia within the keys themselves.
I think I will offer her both options – one reusing the Blues and modifying them along with all the other potential changes discussed, the other with a lighter replacement hammer where I set things up properly from the ground floor in ways that I have been setting up hammer replacement for a long time. If moving capstans and heels is part of that equation, fine.
To modify the wise Mr. Baggins statement, short cuts make for a long drive. She is 2 hours away each way. I only want to make one decision here, and that is the right one. Otherwise, it is a very long misery train.
It is my job to be the expert guiding her on what her range of good choices are, and the attendant costs. She is the expert on what her budget and what her preferences need to be. Together, we can make her a wise consumer making good choices for herself. And she is part of a larger music community where good musicians are often in her home, and other good hands will be on these keys. I’d rather have them singing my praises and not have them throwing rotten cabbages.
Will
Jon Page
On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:09:49 PM UTC-4, Ron Nossaman wrote:
On 3/27/2013 9:33 AM, Dale Erwin wrote:
> while you are at it.... reduce the weight of the heavy Renner blues.
> Sanding the sides or some other method. There is a table saw jig for
> this that I have yet to make but need to.
Good, then you can explain to me how it's possible to taper both sides
of a hung hammer with a table saw jig. I see a lot of claims, but I'd
like it explained. See drawing illustrating why it won't work without
multiple passes at different angles, or cutting through the shank.
Ron N
Isaac OLEG
Jon Page
Isaac OLEG
Isaac OLEG
Isaac OLEG
Ron Nossaman
> My tapering jig has a cut out or drop for the tail once the blade nears
> the shank for angled hammers. The head approaches the blade and as the
> blade nears the shank, I rock the molding to trim the tail.
Ron N
Encore Pianos
Will Truitt
David Love
I just don’t think it’s necessary. As I mentioned, I would not bother taking the time to drill a hole in the wippen lever to receive a doweled heel or, for that matter, throwing away a perfectly good heel that you’ve carefully removed. I don’t see that glue joint moving under any circumstances or a source of lost power. You can fill it in if you want but I don’t think it’s necessary. Of course, if you are worried about loss of power there then you should probably avoid taking weight off the wippen as the attached photo shows. That wippen probably has no power left!
David Love
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Isaac OLEG
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 4:02 AM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
David, in the end using "standard heels" with a dowel is not absolutely easy on the Renner whippen, due to the slot for the old heel.
Ron Nossaman
> Of course, if you are worried about
> loss of power there then you should probably avoid taking weight off the
> wippen as the attached photo shows. That wippen probably has no power left!
Ron N
Encore Pianos
I have also seen someone using a forstner bit to drill a single large hole in the area within and above the capstan heel, the intent being to reduce the mass of the whippen – for what that is worth, great or small.
Will
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Love
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:25 AM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
David Love
David Love
Jon:
Can you post a picture of that when you have a chance? I’d like to see it.
David Love
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jon Page
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:50 AM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
My tapering jig has a cut out or drop for the tail once the blade nears the shank for angled hammers. The head approaches the blade and as the blade nears the shank, I rock the molding to trim the tail.
Isaac OLEG
David Love
Well, it sure doesn’t bend much. The point of force distance (where the heel ends) to the jack center pin is about 25 mm. The beam on the lower part of the wippen is about 8 mm tall by 9.5 mm wide, hornbeam has an MOE of 1,755,000 lbf/in^2. If you apply 100 lbs of force at the heel (and remember that the assembly moves away from you as you apply force so putting 100lbs of force on that section is difficult) the 25 x 8 x 9.5 mm beam will bend something like .0012”. The slot won’t make any difference because the heel covers it and is glued down and since the heel adds effective height to the beam it will break beyond the heel before it ever bends the heel. In fact, since the load is really carried by where the jack center pin spans the lower wippen beam, any significant load will likely shear away the lower part of that beam long before it bends. I’ve never seen that even with the most heavy handed pianists. They would likely shear off the shank long before that happened where the torque is the highest. Anyway, I wouldn’t worry too much about bending or lost power at the wippen even if my numbers aren’t quite right.
The weight of the wippen is only reflected at the key by one-half since it is picked up by the 2:1 key lever. Using a 16 gram wippen as opposed to an 18 gram wippen only buys you 1 gram at the key. Weight reduction there is pretty meaningless, we agree on that.
With respect to heat moving the wippen heel, I would guess that if you had enough heat permeating the wippen to soften pretty much any glue that you might use such that the heel would slip you would have so many other problems (like the piano igniting) that any problems with the wippen/heel glue joint would pale in comparison.
Sure, the wippen is a central lever between two other levers and is important. But it’s a relatively stress free lever unlike the shank and the key. The weight is of no real significance, at least between various wooden parts. If you put a composite material on there that reduces its weight significantly (like, perhaps, the WNG parts and offhand I don’t know what they weigh) then you can get more weight reduction at the key. But, again, only by ½ of the difference.
David Love
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Isaac OLEG
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 12:56 PM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Cc: encore...@metrocast.net
Subject: Re: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
Well David I agree with you no need to take out mass from the whippen, this is a transmission, must be robust (it bend, you know ?) I understand very well that it is possible and OK to do as ou did, I was saying what I see from a mechanical point of view (traditional assemblies, you know) and just to make you nervous a bit (if possible ;)
Isaac OLEG
John Delacour
My first approach to a problem like this is always the hammer head. If the replacement hammers are of the later (heavier) style then without any hesitation I would replace them with a lighter ones. Then there is the shaping of the hammer-heads. I use either Abel (middle and right picture) heads made to my own specification with Abel Natural felt, or Imadegawa. Both are walnut, unshaped but I prefer Imadegawa's scalloping. By not only tapering the mouldings (from top to bottom, not just the bit below the felt) I remove grams from the touch weight. By tailing the hammer in the old fashion I remove more grams.
I understand that in America you get your heads with maple mouldings and partially tailed, as in David Love's picture on the left. This hammer still has a huge quantity of heavy useless wood. Compare it with the finished hammer on the right, which might be further lightened by paring away under the shank and it is clear that the American hammer is carrying a lot of useless mass.
The next thing is the roller distance, which you say is 15.5mm. I thought the New York shank was 16mm. and the Hamburg 17mm. (Abel seems to think so too). If you change from 15.5 to 17, I don't need to tell you that the touch depth will need to be increased, and instead of complaining of too heavy a touch your customer might now find the touch too deep.
I have come across many similar cases, most of them old pianos rebuilt at the Steinway workshops in London with a cavalier disregard for the original specifications. Generally speaking it can be said that if you put modern weight hammers on a piano designed for the lighter weight, the piano will either be unplayable because the touch is too heavy or, if key lead has been added to achieve a so-called correct "down-weight", the piano will be unplayable not only because it will feel almost as heavy as before, but also because the inertia in the system will be intolerable.
JD
David Love
Yes, I think you’ve missed much on this one. The hammer head issue was discussed and the tonal requirements seem to be correct with the current hammer plus a change of hammer heads did not seem to be in the budget. The action ratio at present is reported to be 6.68. Changing from 15.5 to 17 will lower it to 6.09, hardly in danger of excess key dip.
The picture of mine that you have posted is very foreshortened because of the angle of the photograph as I took it to demonstrate removing weight with a hand plane. Therefore the tail looks to be much larger than it actually is when compared to the head. This set of hammer is actually quite light in weight, very much like the original hammers that came off this particular piano (early 1900s Steinway O NY). Moreover, it is exactly the weight, profile, density of felt that I wanted for this piano. The sides of the hammer are fully tapered from the top of the molding to the bottom to something like 7-8 mm wide at the bottom. I could have tailed it more aggressively and removed another .2 or maybe .3 grams had I deemed it necessary but the weight was correct, at least by my target, not more, not less. That being said, I often leave the final tailing for after the hammers are hung on the shanks to clean up the glue joint and refine the strikeweights to something more precise both in terms of final weight and the shape of the weight curve from end to end. I don’t recall on this set where the tails actually ended up, they may well have been thinner when all was said and done but it would have been based on target weight rather than a specific taper target.
I actually prefer a deeper base of the hammer than the your sets show as I find it necessary on occasion to set the felt by putting the hammers on a voicing block and pounding the crown some. I don’t like any chipping or splintering when I do that and so don’t want the tails to be too thin. If I need more weight reduction, I prefer to do it more from the sides generally or order them lighter to begin with by using lightweight, low density maple which is as light as pretty much anything else you can find.
Clearly this case was one in which the weight of the new hammers was not given due consideration with the older action ratio. Not even clear if the parts that came off originally weren’t 16 mm (though the weight match still would have been bad). Renner does make a 15.5 mm knuckle hanging (I think Steinway’s so called “pre-84 Hamburg dimensions may be 15.5—I don’t know as I don’t buy those from Steinway).
David Love
From: pian...@googlegroups.com [mailto:pian...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Delacour
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:13 PM
To: pian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ptech] Steinway L with very heavy action, many leads
I haven't followed all the ins and outs of this thread since I've been in bed all week with 'flu and still feel pretty rotten.
