I find it odd that if the piano was made in 1971, only now is there a complaint about power loss? Must have sounded really good at one point for someone to buy it. So how could that be a hammer line problem? If it was rebuilt, wouldn't the power loss be there from when it was rebuilt? I would assume someone was happy with the rebuild, if not, could have had it fixed then if the hammers were installed wrong.
The lack of sustain can often be corrected with hammer voicing, if that was the cause.
But another gear in the system is Steinway's poor rib structure. Every Steinway rib scale in my database has the same bad structure. Usually the 3rd, 4th, and 5th rib from the top are undermassed. On a B, C, and D those ribs should be 1" wide. If not i suggest that's the real culprit. I have noticed that every Baldwin in my database, those same ribs are a little over-massed. Hmmm........... That piano is about 50 years old, just about the right time for those under-massed ribs to start showing the early signs of fatigue. When I make a new board, I make those ribs the correct dimensions, and therefore, I have never needed to alter the hammer line. I always use the original bridge root, so that can't be the problem either.
In my opinion, Steinway's have way too much downbearing up in that section, I've seen 2-3 degrees of deflection. That coupled with the small ribs are a double whammy. So checking for excessive downbearing would be something to look for too.
The only time I have used riblets, anywhere on a board, was to fix a "too much energy note" problem. Not sure they add structural support.
-chris
------------------------------
I don't always play the piano, but when i do, I prefer my own.
chernobieffpiano.com
grandpianoman@protonmail.com865-986-7720
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 10-19-2018 18:51
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: 1971 Steinway D and riblets
In my opinion, the pluck test can be misleading if you are not listening right. When I do this, I listen to the length of the fundamental sustain, rather than any partial higher than the 1st partial. The fundamental can be hard to focus on, as hearing fundamental die out can be much harder to do than tracking partials by beats. Fundamental presence also depends on where the string is plucked.
------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
Original Message:
Sent: 10-19-2018 07:23
From: Paul Williams
Subject: 1971 Steinway D and riblets
Hi again,
As I stated earlier, I totally forgot to do the pluck test, and asked the prof to try it. Fortunately, she indeed recorded one of the worst non sustaining notes, and plucking them sounded nice and clear and sustained! Now, on to the hammers or changing the hammer line. Not sure if I will do it, but can certainly tell whoever does it that this is what it needs. If I can convince the school to just get new hammers and shanks, I will highly suggest the technician do the hammer line arch, and they will have a nice piano again.
Thank you all for the inputs. Please continue to add more if you wish, but I now know the best approach on this project. I hope I can get the gig as we could use the extra $$$
Best,
Paul
Original Message------
I examined a D in a college.
New factory hung hammers had been installed.
Dead in the killer octave section.
I thought "they didn't lacquer the hammers."
Checking with a needle, the hammers were quite hard.
I pulled the action forward as Keith described and it came alive like magic.
This is the first thing to try on a D with weakness in the capo section.
------------------------------
Ed Sutton
ed440@me.com
(980) 254-7413
------------------------------