Hi,
A further thought on this.
While I am very much with Fred on his approach, it's also important to
remember that not all makers conceive of having the plane of the strings
parallel with the plane of the keybed (or, anything else, for that
matter). Whether this is a good design or not doesn't really matter.
What matters is taking the time to make careful measurements on a
per-instrument basis, and proceeding accordingly.
Obviously, this does not mean that gross anomalies of string height
cannot/should not be appropriately leveled out. Rather, sensitivity to
the design as conceived will probably lead to a better end result.
Kind regards.
Horace
On 7/2/2015 5:04 PM, Alan Eder via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
> Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login.
>
>
> Fred,
>
>
> Ah, the insights to be gleaned from the music of George Crumb!
>
>
> I agree that calculating an individual bore for each hammer is overkill, and possibly even counterproductive. (Note: When restringing, the string height plane can be evened out in the bass and tenor as agraffes are replaced.) When measuring string height prior to boring hammers, I usually find a slight but general slope within a section, which I follow with the bore (i. e., getting steadily longer or shorter from one hammer to the next).
>
>
> Are you saying that you use one bore for all of the bass and another for all of the treble (and "burying the bodies" anywhere but in let-off or aftertouch, which I also do)?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Alan Eder, RPT
> Herb Alpert School of Music
> California Institute of the Arts
> Valencia, CA
> 661.904.6483
> ------------------------------
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Original Message:
> Sent: 07-02-2015 18:06
> From: Fred Sturm
> Subject: Measuring Irregular string heights
>
>
>
>
> There's no question that the string heights vary. I first noticed how badly when playing some music by George Crumb, that required a glass rod or various other straight objects placed across an octave or so of strings. Several of the notes would be clear, unaffected by the foreign object.
>
>
> To answer your question about regulating to these anomalies, I don't see the point of going beyond adjusting let off to the actual string (one of the main reasons why it is necessary to do it in the piano), and then drop is done to that. Aftertouch will also be adjusted in line with what you have done.
>
>
> But custom boring every hammer for its individual string height (to the 0.5 mm?) frankly seems pointlessly anal and counterproductive. Things like let off, drop and aftertouch matter to within 0.5 mm in high end work. Blow distance is not so sensitive, nor is relative key dip as a fixed measurement, at least in my opinion based on experience. So we simply customize the regulation to the individual note through the parameters of let off and aftertouch, making those the gold standard, and allowing wiggle room elsewhere.
>
>
> To take an example, the string heights (from the keybed) of bass strings vary far more, with A0 far shorter than E2 by 3 mm or possibly more. So what do you do? vary the bore, vary the hammer line, have it slope down? I don't think so. If nothing else, people would look askance at your meticulous work. Better to have a nice straight line and take up the difference in a bit of regulation variance. That's what everyone I know does, and I have heard no complaints. <G>
>
> ------------------------------
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
>
fssturm@unm.edu>
http://fredsturm.net>
http://www.artoftuning.com> "We either make ourselves happy or miserable. The amount of work is the same." - Carlos Casteneda
> ------------------------------
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Original Message:
> Sent: 07-02-2015 05:11
> From: David Skolnik
> Subject: Measuring Irregular string heights
>
>
>
>
> Rather than confuse the direction that Kevin's thread is heading - towards regulation, I've copied my response, and question, to a separate thread. Given the problems that people seem to be having lately with the changes in these discussions are appearing, on line, I hope this doesn't make things worse.
>
>
> Kevin - Staying with the string height part of your question-
>
>
> The most recent tool I've been using is the one from (I think) Renner, though I can't find it on their website at the moment. It's the one with a wood base, nylon(?) cylinder with spring-loaded (not sure; I removed it in any case) with magnetic tip, with metric indicator rule. With plunger in contact with string, you tighten a set screw to retain measurement, then remove to read.
>
>
> Can't remember who made the set of 8 tubes with threaded plungers and set screws with numbered knobs, to be able to take and retain heights (without actual measurement readings) to transfer directly to bench string height target.
>
>
> As a tangential question: yesterday, I was taking string height measurements from a 1916 Steinway B. The ends of the first treble (tenor? section - starting with #21) were 190 mm - 191 mm - pretty good, except I found some notable (1-2mm) variations from one note to another. I didn't look carefully to see if agraffes were original, but I realized that I had always assumed a linear progression from one end of a section to the other, and adjusted my hammer boring on that basis. My question is, how far would people go (assuming a refined regulation being the goal) to accommodate these discrepancies, both in boring and regulation? It would seem that the most consistent result (dip, let-off, aftertouch, etc) would require boring to the anomalies, and setting a 'shank' line, rather than a hammer line.
>
>
> Wondering.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> David Skolnik
> Hastings-on-Hudson NY
> 914-231-7565
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Reply to Sender :
http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=49&SenderKey=2bcc950a-bfcf-400e-8f5d-ab14732ae620&MID=650256&MDATE=756%253a45%253c457&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved>
> Reply to Discussion :
http://my.ptg.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=49&MID=650256&MDATE=756%253a45%253c457&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved>
>
>
> You are subscribed to "CAUT" as
A442@sonic.net. To change your subscriptions, go to
http://my.ptg.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions&MDATE=756%253a45%253c457&UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to
http://my.ptg.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=3feecf45-4a69-4cff-bbb2-fd6c7eaf0569&sKey=KeyRemoved&GroupKey=e03c48ae-bba7-4045-9d5f-c5e4b7b46b15.
Original Message------
Fred,
Ah, the insights to be gleaned from the music of George Crumb!
I agree that calculating an individual bore for each hammer is overkill, and possibly even counterproductive. (Note: When restringing, the string height plane can be evened out in the bass and tenor as agraffes are replaced.) When measuring string height prior to boring hammers, I usually find a slight but general slope within a section, which I follow with the bore (i. e., getting steadily longer or shorter from one hammer to the next).
Are you saying that you use one bore for all of the bass and another for all of the treble (and "burying the bodies" anywhere but in let-off or aftertouch, which I also do)?
Thanks,
------------------------------
Alan Eder, RPT
Herb Alpert School of Music
California Institute of the Arts
Valencia, CA
661.904.6483
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 07-02-2015 18:06
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: Measuring Irregular string heights
There's no question that the string heights vary. I first noticed how badly when playing some music by George Crumb, that required a glass rod or various other straight objects placed across an octave or so of strings. Several of the notes would be clear, unaffected by the foreign object.
To answer your question about regulating to these anomalies, I don't see the point of going beyond adjusting let off to the actual string (one of the main reasons why it is necessary to do it in the piano), and then drop is done to that. Aftertouch will also be adjusted in line with what you have done.
But custom boring every hammer for its individual string height (to the 0.5 mm?) frankly seems pointlessly anal and counterproductive. Things like let off, drop and aftertouch matter to within 0.5 mm in high end work. Blow distance is not so sensitive, nor is relative key dip as a fixed measurement, at least in my opinion based on experience. So we simply customize the regulation to the individual note through the parameters of let off and aftertouch, making those the gold standard, and allowing wiggle room elsewhere.
To take an example, the string heights (from the keybed) of bass strings vary far more, with A0 far shorter than E2 by 3 mm or possibly more. So what do you do? vary the bore, vary the hammer line, have it slope down? I don't think so. If nothing else, people would look askance at your meticulous work. Better to have a nice straight line and take up the difference in a bit of regulation variance. That's what everyone I know does, and I have heard no complaints. <G>
------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
http://www.artoftuning.com
"We either make ourselves happy or miserable. The amount of work is the same." - Carlos Casteneda
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 07-02-2015 05:11
From: David Skolnik
Subject: Measuring Irregular string heights
Rather than confuse the direction that Kevin's thread is heading - towards regulation, I've copied my response, and question, to a separate thread. Given the problems that people seem to be having lately with the changes in these discussions are appearing, on line, I hope this doesn't make things worse.
Kevin - Staying with the string height part of your question-
The most recent tool I've been using is the one from (I think) Renner, though I can't find it on their website at the moment. It's the one with a wood base, nylon(?) cylinder with spring-loaded (not sure; I removed it in any case) with magnetic tip, with metric indicator rule. With plunger in contact with string, you tighten a set screw to retain measurement, then remove to read.
Can't remember who made the set of 8 tubes with threaded plungers and set screws with numbered knobs, to be able to take and retain heights (without actual measurement readings) to transfer directly to bench string height target.
As a tangential question: yesterday, I was taking string height measurements from a 1916 Steinway B. The ends of the first treble (tenor? section - starting with #21) were 190 mm - 191 mm - pretty good, except I found some notable (1-2mm) variations from one note to another. I didn't look carefully to see if agraffes were original, but I realized that I had always assumed a linear progression from one end of a section to the other, and adjusted my hammer boring on that basis. My question is, how far would people go (assuming a refined regulation being the goal) to accommodate these discrepancies, both in boring and regulation? It would seem that the most consistent result (dip, let-off, aftertouch, etc) would require boring to the anomalies, and setting a 'shank' line, rather than a hammer line.
Wondering.
------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
------------------------------