Discussion: View Thread

I am in the situation of dealing with a 1920s O that had its back checks and wires replaced with the new, extra thick and stiff ones maybe 10 - 15 years ago. It's work for a private customer. I replaced the hammers and did key work (rebushed and new key end felts), and am now doing bench regulation, and discovering that making any significant bend in the back check wires, using fingers on the back check wood to do so, will result in the wire becoming loose in the key. The bottom of the wire is in the softer wood of the key itself (there is a hardwood block holding the top of the wire), and bending it is causing denting of that wood.

I wonder how others have dealt with this problem.

The wire is VERY hard to bend, so it isn't too surprising that this is happening. The wires feel solid in the wood before I start regulating them, and they all need to come forward a fair amount. Those that got loose I have managed to deal with using thin CA and accelerator, though it is a lengthy process to get enough material in the hole to do the trick. A couple were drilled all the way through the bottoms of the keys, so I thought I could maybe stiffen the wood by adding CA there (that made it faster to get the loose ones solid again), but unfortunately the vast majority aren't drilled through.

At the moment, I am making an approximately correct bend forward using bending pliers, in hopes that now I won't need to adjust as much, but I suspect I'll still have some loosening. Frustrating.

I would try damper regulators opposed to pliers, but not from experience. @ OB we just recovered backchecks, and never encountered such problems. Time flies...

The best tool I've found for these wires is the earlier version of the #197 Fendon Backcheck bender in the Schaff catalolg, which was made by (or for) Tuner's Supply.  I no longer can find my old catalog, but it's the same one pictured in the old (paper) Pacific Supply Company catalog,  I couldn't access their 'on-line' version to see if they still have it.  The Schaff item is inadequate, due to its roundness, which deprives it of enough bearing surface for these wires.  Also, the bend is too far back from the working groove. I don't actually do the bend with the tool, rather, I stabilize the wire with it and do bend with my hand (sometimes both!!)  

My solution of first choice was as Ben mentioned: recovering.  Made much easier with the introduction of Ecsaine, though I wonder how it will age.  On occasion, I have found old wires too soft.

Great discussion. So if we have one of these Steinway actions and realize it does have in fact have these stiff wires--and we are about to replace hammers, shanks, & flanges. (as a minimum) what would the "ideal fix" be? Replace with current Steinway stock, or possibly Wessell, Nickel, & Gross?? I realize this depends on the situation, but my primary question is: which products (that are actually available) would have the ideal wire stiffness, length of backcheck and the like with a "normal" set of hammers that we typically currently use??

Mason & Hamlin seem to have done the most recent backcheck design, with the new WNG parts with the much-smaller head. Last time I looked, there was about a $700 investment in custom tools to use them, but they seem to be the only people aggressively redesigning from scratch. 

--Cy--

The best tool I've found for these wires is the earlier version of the #197 Fendon Backcheck bender in the Schaff catalolg, which was made by (or for) Tuner's Supply.  I no longer can find my old catalog, but it's the same one pictured in the old (paper) Pacific Supply Company catalog,  I couldn't access their 'on-line' version to see if they still have it.  The Schaff item is inadequate, due to its roundness, which deprives it of enough bearing surface for these wires.  Also, the bend is too far back from the working groove. I don't actually do the bend with the tool, rather, I stabilize the wire with it and do bend with my hand (sometimes both!!)  

My solution of first choice was as Ben mentioned: recovering.  Made much easier with the introduction of Ecsaine, though I wonder how it will age.  On occasion, I have found old wires too soft.

I would try damper regulators opposed to pliers, but not from experience. @ OB we just recovered backchecks, and never encountered such problems. Time flies...

The stage in the motion of the piano key where the hammer tail strikes backcheck is a static, not a dynamic vector. As for wire flexibility, the question is what promotes staticity, flex in the wire or stiffness. 

I suppose wires too flexible would be inclined to go out of regulation with use, maybe even, impede staticity. But stiffness impedes the check doing what it is designed to do, capture and trap the hammer tail, preventing the hammer from bobbling or bouncing against the string after the initial strike of the key multiple times, much as cover wear, lack of coarseness on the hammer tail, etc. Wires too stiff are as good as not having a backcheck. But an argument can be made for it as that it is a static vector. Stiff wires promote staticity. There is also wear to key bushings and hammer flanges to consider, and in both cases, it is hard to argue softer wire is not more forgiving. There are also questions about materials related to this. Durability.

The vector can only be as static as the check can effectively catch the hammer tail. So the wire must be soft, and forgiving.

How that relates to repetition, high vs. low checking, massive vs. diminutive check, heavy vs. light check, check angle, hammer tail arch and size, and other consequences of such disparities, that is off subject, but germane to backchecks. 

No tangents?

The best tool I've found for these wires is the earlier version of the #197 Fendon Backcheck bender in the Schaff catalolg, which was made by (or for) Tuner's Supply.  I no longer can find my old catalog, but it's the same one pictured in the old (paper) Pacific Supply Company catalog,  I couldn't access their 'on-line' version to see if they still have it.  The Schaff item is inadequate, due to its roundness, which deprives it of enough bearing surface for these wires.  Also, the bend is too far back from the working groove. I don't actually do the bend with the tool, rather, I stabilize the wire with it and do bend with my hand (sometimes both!!)  

My solution of first choice was as Ben mentioned: recovering.  Made much easier with the introduction of Ecsaine, though I wonder how it will age.  On occasion, I have found old wires too soft.

I would try damper regulators opposed to pliers, but not from experience. @ OB we just recovered backchecks, and never encountered such problems. Time flies...

No tangents.  

Ben says:

The vector can only be as static as the check can effectively catch the hammer tail. So the wire must be soft, and forgiving.

How that relates to repetition, high vs. low checking, massive vs. diminutive check, heavy vs. light check, check angle, hammer tail arch and size, and other consequences of such disparities, that is off subject, but germane to backchecks.

Some items  of this list is more immediately relevant than others, but not off-subject.  I don't concur with he logic that concludes that the wire must be soft and forgiving.  First of all, we easily get into this sort of endless-loop debate when we use terms like 'soft', 'forgiving', 'static', etc. Clearly, it's possible to measure differences in rigidity and deflection.  Fred's question isn't whether there is some fundamental benefit to stiff or flexible backcheck wires.  It's how to effectively adjust stiff wires without damaging the key, however, the difference in wire deflection characteristics will affect the mechanics of the  interface of backcheck angle and tail.  You can get away with a larger radius on the working part of the tail if the wires are stiffer..  With more resilient wires, that radius will have a greater tendency to slide-through.

The stage in the motion of the piano key where the hammer tail strikes backcheck is a static, not a dynamic vector. As for wire flexibility, the question is what promotes staticity, flex in the wire or stiffness. 

I suppose wires too flexible would be inclined to go out of regulation with use, maybe even, impede staticity. But stiffness impedes the check doing what it is designed to do, capture and trap the hammer tail, preventing the hammer from bobbling or bouncing against the string after the initial strike of the key multiple times, much as cover wear, lack of coarseness on the hammer tail, etc. Wires too stiff are as good as not having a backcheck. But an argument can be made for it as that it is a static vector. Stiff wires promote staticity. There is also wear to key bushings and hammer flanges to consider, and in both cases, it is hard to argue softer wire is not more forgiving. There are also questions about materials related to this. Durability.

The vector can only be as static as the check can effectively catch the hammer tail. So the wire must be soft, and forgiving.

How that relates to repetition, high vs. low checking, massive vs. diminutive check, heavy vs. light check, check angle, hammer tail arch and size, and other consequences of such disparities, that is off subject, but germane to backchecks. 

No tangents?

The best tool I've found for these wires is the earlier version of the #197 Fendon Backcheck bender in the Schaff catalolg, which was made by (or for) Tuner's Supply.  I no longer can find my old catalog, but it's the same one pictured in the old (paper) Pacific Supply Company catalog,  I couldn't access their 'on-line' version to see if they still have it.  The Schaff item is inadequate, due to its roundness, which deprives it of enough bearing surface for these wires.  Also, the bend is too far back from the working groove. I don't actually do the bend with the tool, rather, I stabilize the wire with it and do bend with my hand (sometimes both!!)  

My solution of first choice was as Ben mentioned: recovering.  Made much easier with the introduction of Ecsaine, though I wonder how it will age.  On occasion, I have found old wires too soft.

I would try damper regulators opposed to pliers, but not from experience. @ OB we just recovered backchecks, and never encountered such problems. Time flies...

Thanks Dave,

You make some good observations. There are examples of piano parts that change function over the years. Perhaps the shift pedal is the best example, which changed from being for the purpose of Una Corda to special effects.The idea of "deflection" would be something similar to this, because historically in pianos the backcheck would not be fulfilling its original purpose if the hammer in any way was deflected by the backcheck, if I understand you correctly.

Repetition might be something the backcheck could augment with greater "rigidity" overall, not just the wire. Traditionally piano technicians relied on things like higher checking, strengthening the repetition lever springs, higher let-off and drop, easing action centers, and lots of other things. In experience as a keyboardist, though, bobbling hammers are still one of the most annoying things that can happen, so it is hard to conceive that the backcheck should not flex back as the hammer tail strikes it, due to the flexibility of the wire, and the cover grab the tail as the felt underneath cushions the blow and assists the process by causing the cover to actually enclose around the tail, gripping it.  

More likely the reason backcheck wire manufacturers and piano technicians are designing and installing stiffer wires is because hammers on pianos keep just getting bigger, and if they are not, the one restoring it will likely put larger ones on it. Smaller pianos and hammers are scoffed at. At school in New York an Eastern European technician from Steinway put a set of D hammers on a B. This has been going on since at least the early nineties.

There is a charm to the Chickering Baby Grand of going on a century ago that has disappeared from the piano market entirely it seems, a quaint, placid, sweeter, more inviting sound that nobody seems to want to recreate anymore. Everything has to be bigger, badder, angrier, louder, and if it isn't already, it will be after I restore it. And of course, if we strike the key at ff, it is more likely to check than if we strike the key at pp. Everything has to be so loud now, as if to fill a basketball arena, in piano design, manufacturing, maintenance, and performance. Am I being too sentimental?      

Should technicians have to go through the symptoms of accounting for these trends, like damaging keys with wires that won't bend? Does this symbolize something lost in the piano industry?

No tangents.  

Ben says:

The vector can only be as static as the check can effectively catch the hammer tail. So the wire must be soft, and forgiving.

How that relates to repetition, high vs. low checking, massive vs. diminutive check, heavy vs. light check, check angle, hammer tail arch and size, and other consequences of such disparities, that is off subject, but germane to backchecks.

Some items  of this list is more immediately relevant than others, but not off-subject.  I don't concur with he logic that concludes that the wire must be soft and forgiving.  First of all, we easily get into this sort of endless-loop debate when we use terms like 'soft', 'forgiving', 'static', etc. Clearly, it's possible to measure differences in rigidity and deflection.  Fred's question isn't whether there is some fundamental benefit to stiff or flexible backcheck wires.  It's how to effectively adjust stiff wires without damaging the key, however, the difference in wire deflection characteristics will affect the mechanics of the  interface of backcheck angle and tail.  You can get away with a larger radius on the working part of the tail if the wires are stiffer..  With more resilient wires, that radius will have a greater tendency to slide-through.

The stage in the motion of the piano key where the hammer tail strikes backcheck is a static, not a dynamic vector. As for wire flexibility, the question is what promotes staticity, flex in the wire or stiffness. 

I suppose wires too flexible would be inclined to go out of regulation with use, maybe even, impede staticity. But stiffness impedes the check doing what it is designed to do, capture and trap the hammer tail, preventing the hammer from bobbling or bouncing against the string after the initial strike of the key multiple times, much as cover wear, lack of coarseness on the hammer tail, etc. Wires too stiff are as good as not having a backcheck. But an argument can be made for it as that it is a static vector. Stiff wires promote staticity. There is also wear to key bushings and hammer flanges to consider, and in both cases, it is hard to argue softer wire is not more forgiving. There are also questions about materials related to this. Durability.

The vector can only be as static as the check can effectively catch the hammer tail. So the wire must be soft, and forgiving.

How that relates to repetition, high vs. low checking, massive vs. diminutive check, heavy vs. light check, check angle, hammer tail arch and size, and other consequences of such disparities, that is off subject, but germane to backchecks. 

No tangents?

The best tool I've found for these wires is the earlier version of the #197 Fendon Backcheck bender in the Schaff catalolg, which was made by (or for) Tuner's Supply.  I no longer can find my old catalog, but it's the same one pictured in the old (paper) Pacific Supply Company catalog,  I couldn't access their 'on-line' version to see if they still have it.  The Schaff item is inadequate, due to its roundness, which deprives it of enough bearing surface for these wires.  Also, the bend is too far back from the working groove. I don't actually do the bend with the tool, rather, I stabilize the wire with it and do bend with my hand (sometimes both!!)  

My solution of first choice was as Ben mentioned: recovering.  Made much easier with the introduction of Ecsaine, though I wonder how it will age.  On occasion, I have found old wires too soft.

I would try damper regulators opposed to pliers, but not from experience. @ OB we just recovered backchecks, and never encountered such problems. Time flies...

Thanks Dave,

You make some good observations. There are examples of piano parts that change function over the years. Perhaps the shift pedal is the best example, which changed from being for the purpose of Una Corda to special effects.The idea of "deflection" would be something similar to this, because historically in pianos the backcheck would not be fulfilling its original purpose if the hammer in any way was deflected by the backcheck, if I understand you correctly.

Repetition might be something the backcheck could augment with greater "rigidity" overall, not just the wire. Traditionally piano technicians relied on things like higher checking, strengthening the repetition lever springs, higher let-off and drop, easing action centers, and lots of other things. In experience as a keyboardist, though, bobbling hammers are still one of the most annoying things that can happen, so it is hard to conceive that the backcheck should not flex back as the hammer tail strikes it, due to the flexibility of the wire, and the cover grab the tail as the felt underneath cushions the blow and assists the process by causing the cover to actually enclose around the tail, gripping it.  

More likely the reason backcheck wire manufacturers and piano technicians are designing and installing stiffer wires is because hammers on pianos keep just getting bigger, and if they are not, the one restoring it will likely put larger ones on it. Smaller pianos and hammers are scoffed at. At school in New York an Eastern European technician from Steinway put a set of D hammers on a B. This has been going on since at least the early nineties.

There is a charm to the Chickering Baby Grand of going on a century ago that has disappeared from the piano market entirely it seems, a quaint, placid, sweeter, more inviting sound that nobody seems to want to recreate anymore. Everything has to be bigger, badder, angrier, louder, and if it isn't already, it will be after I restore it. And of course, if we strike the key at ff, it is more likely to check than if we strike the key at pp. Everything has to be so loud now, as if to fill a basketball arena, in piano design, manufacturing, maintenance, and performance. Am I being too sentimental?      

Should technicians have to go through the symptoms of accounting for these trends, like damaging keys with wires that won't bend? Does this symbolize something lost in the piano industry?

No tangents.  

Ben says:

The vector can only be as static as the check can effectively catch the hammer tail. So the wire must be soft, and forgiving.

How that relates to repetition, high vs. low checking, massive vs. diminutive check, heavy vs. light check, check angle, hammer tail arch and size, and other consequences of such disparities, that is off subject, but germane to backchecks.

Some items  of this list is more immediately relevant than others, but not off-subject.  I don't concur with he logic that concludes that the wire must be soft and forgiving.  First of all, we easily get into this sort of endless-loop debate when we use terms like 'soft', 'forgiving', 'static', etc. Clearly, it's possible to measure differences in rigidity and deflection.  Fred's question isn't whether there is some fundamental benefit to stiff or flexible backcheck wires.  It's how to effectively adjust stiff wires without damaging the key, however, the difference in wire deflection characteristics will affect the mechanics of the  interface of backcheck angle and tail.  You can get away with a larger radius on the working part of the tail if the wires are stiffer..  With more resilient wires, that radius will have a greater tendency to slide-through.

The stage in the motion of the piano key where the hammer tail strikes backcheck is a static, not a dynamic vector. As for wire flexibility, the question is what promotes staticity, flex in the wire or stiffness. 

I suppose wires too flexible would be inclined to go out of regulation with use, maybe even, impede staticity. But stiffness impedes the check doing what it is designed to do, capture and trap the hammer tail, preventing the hammer from bobbling or bouncing against the string after the initial strike of the key multiple times, much as cover wear, lack of coarseness on the hammer tail, etc. Wires too stiff are as good as not having a backcheck. But an argument can be made for it as that it is a static vector. Stiff wires promote staticity. There is also wear to key bushings and hammer flanges to consider, and in both cases, it is hard to argue softer wire is not more forgiving. There are also questions about materials related to this. Durability.

The vector can only be as static as the check can effectively catch the hammer tail. So the wire must be soft, and forgiving.

How that relates to repetition, high vs. low checking, massive vs. diminutive check, heavy vs. light check, check angle, hammer tail arch and size, and other consequences of such disparities, that is off subject, but germane to backchecks. 

No tangents?

The best tool I've found for these wires is the earlier version of the #197 Fendon Backcheck bender in the Schaff catalolg, which was made by (or for) Tuner's Supply.  I no longer can find my old catalog, but it's the same one pictured in the old (paper) Pacific Supply Company catalog,  I couldn't access their 'on-line' version to see if they still have it.  The Schaff item is inadequate, due to its roundness, which deprives it of enough bearing surface for these wires.  Also, the bend is too far back from the working groove. I don't actually do the bend with the tool, rather, I stabilize the wire with it and do bend with my hand (sometimes both!!)  

My solution of first choice was as Ben mentioned: recovering.  Made much easier with the introduction of Ecsaine, though I wonder how it will age.  On occasion, I have found old wires too soft.

I would try damper regulators opposed to pliers, but not from experience. @ OB we just recovered backchecks, and never encountered such problems. Time flies...

Great post Benjamin. All the metal we find in pianos today is very different from that of a century ago.  This goes for most other materials too....ie. felt, leather. A lot of what we do today as piano techs is try to deall with problems that have arisen from changes in material science and industry. Unfortunately this subject is largely misunderstood and neglected.

Thanks Dave,

You make some good observations. There are examples of piano parts that change function over the years. Perhaps the shift pedal is the best example, which changed from being for the purpose of Una Corda to special effects.The idea of "deflection" would be something similar to this, because historically in pianos the backcheck would not be fulfilling its original purpose if the hammer in any way was deflected by the backcheck, if I understand you correctly.

Repetition might be something the backcheck could augment with greater "rigidity" overall, not just the wire. Traditionally piano technicians relied on things like higher checking, strengthening the repetition lever springs, higher let-off and drop, easing action centers, and lots of other things. In experience as a keyboardist, though, bobbling hammers are still one of the most annoying things that can happen, so it is hard to conceive that the backcheck should not flex back as the hammer tail strikes it, due to the flexibility of the wire, and the cover grab the tail as the felt underneath cushions the blow and assists the process by causing the cover to actually enclose around the tail, gripping it.  

More likely the reason backcheck wire manufacturers and piano technicians are designing and installing stiffer wires is because hammers on pianos keep just getting bigger, and if they are not, the one restoring it will likely put larger ones on it. Smaller pianos and hammers are scoffed at. At school in New York an Eastern European technician from Steinway put a set of D hammers on a B. This has been going on since at least the early nineties.

There is a charm to the Chickering Baby Grand of going on a century ago that has disappeared from the piano market entirely it seems, a quaint, placid, sweeter, more inviting sound that nobody seems to want to recreate anymore. Everything has to be bigger, badder, angrier, louder, and if it isn't already, it will be after I restore it. And of course, if we strike the key at ff, it is more likely to check than if we strike the key at pp. Everything has to be so loud now, as if to fill a basketball arena, in piano design, manufacturing, maintenance, and performance. Am I being too sentimental?      

Should technicians have to go through the symptoms of accounting for these trends, like damaging keys with wires that won't bend? Does this symbolize something lost in the piano industry?

No tangents.  

Ben says:

The vector can only be as static as the check can effectively catch the hammer tail. So the wire must be soft, and forgiving.

How that relates to repetition, high vs. low checking, massive vs. diminutive check, heavy vs. light check, check angle, hammer tail arch and size, and other consequences of such disparities, that is off subject, but germane to backchecks.

Some items  of this list is more immediately relevant than others, but not off-subject.  I don't concur with he logic that concludes that the wire must be soft and forgiving.  First of all, we easily get into this sort of endless-loop debate when we use terms like 'soft', 'forgiving', 'static', etc. Clearly, it's possible to measure differences in rigidity and deflection.  Fred's question isn't whether there is some fundamental benefit to stiff or flexible backcheck wires.  It's how to effectively adjust stiff wires without damaging the key, however, the difference in wire deflection characteristics will affect the mechanics of the  interface of backcheck angle and tail.  You can get away with a larger radius on the working part of the tail if the wires are stiffer..  With more resilient wires, that radius will have a greater tendency to slide-through.

The stage in the motion of the piano key where the hammer tail strikes backcheck is a static, not a dynamic vector. As for wire flexibility, the question is what promotes staticity, flex in the wire or stiffness. 

I suppose wires too flexible would be inclined to go out of regulation with use, maybe even, impede staticity. But stiffness impedes the check doing what it is designed to do, capture and trap the hammer tail, preventing the hammer from bobbling or bouncing against the string after the initial strike of the key multiple times, much as cover wear, lack of coarseness on the hammer tail, etc. Wires too stiff are as good as not having a backcheck. But an argument can be made for it as that it is a static vector. Stiff wires promote staticity. There is also wear to key bushings and hammer flanges to consider, and in both cases, it is hard to argue softer wire is not more forgiving. There are also questions about materials related to this. Durability.

The vector can only be as static as the check can effectively catch the hammer tail. So the wire must be soft, and forgiving.

How that relates to repetition, high vs. low checking, massive vs. diminutive check, heavy vs. light check, check angle, hammer tail arch and size, and other consequences of such disparities, that is off subject, but germane to backchecks. 

No tangents?

The best tool I've found for these wires is the earlier version of the #197 Fendon Backcheck bender in the Schaff catalolg, which was made by (or for) Tuner's Supply.  I no longer can find my old catalog, but it's the same one pictured in the old (paper) Pacific Supply Company catalog,  I couldn't access their 'on-line' version to see if they still have it.  The Schaff item is inadequate, due to its roundness, which deprives it of enough bearing surface for these wires.  Also, the bend is too far back from the working groove. I don't actually do the bend with the tool, rather, I stabilize the wire with it and do bend with my hand (sometimes both!!)  

My solution of first choice was as Ben mentioned: recovering.  Made much easier with the introduction of Ecsaine, though I wonder how it will age.  On occasion, I have found old wires too soft.

I would try damper regulators opposed to pliers, but not from experience. @ OB we just recovered backchecks, and never encountered such problems. Time flies...