Pianotech

I have been taking some time to slow down and fuss with a couple of grand pianos in our university collection.  In working on the bench with these actions, I have been frustrated to some degree with the apparent inconsistency I have been dealing with from note to note as I have chased some kind of uniformity in the regulation.

I am now working in the piano, and have for this project abandoned the use of a weight on the keys to determine consistency of key dip and aftertouch.  I am finding the experience much more agreeable.  The pianos in question are a 1977 Mason & Hamlin CC and a 1981 Baldwin L.

I am starting by confirming (and adjusting, if necessary) key height and key dip.  I then dial in the hammer blow to a spec that emerges as workable in the process.  I really don't want to see anything less than 46mm.  (I'm accustomed to using .045" as my aftertouch spec, but on the Baldwin I've reduced it to .036 to achieve my desired hammer blow.) I then am refining the let-off so as to achieve what has been described in another thread here as ghosting - having the note sound softly when the key is played from a point where the jack has met the let-off button and the repetition lever surface has met the drop screw.  I'm not looking for something ridiculously close in terms of let-off, but I don't want to have to be really vigorous to get a sound either.

Once these adjustments have been completed, I insert a let-off gauge under the key and see what I've got.  I don't want let-off to precede contact, nor do I want to press particularly hard to move the note through let-off.

There is usually some fudging to be done, but I'm surprised at how much difference a little change can make.  Both actions have Crescendo punching at the front rail, so I've got a pretty steady point of reference.  I don't mind leeway of .005" in dip, but I don't want to see much more than that.  Again, I'm working with finger pressure rather than a fixed weight, so I suppose that is giving me a bit of leeway as well.  A bit of fudging can be done with let-off, but not much if I want the ghosting to have any kind of consistency.  The hammer line is also negotiable, to the degree that nothing is allowed to be obviously out of whack.  A little here goes a long way!

To my delight, I have not needed to accept much variation in how let-off feels at the front of the key with the gauge in place.  There is a little, but once the gauge is removed, I am imagining that the difference in final tactile sensation is not going to be discernible by the pianist.

I finished working through the Mason & Hamlin last Wednesday, and got halfway through the Baldwin today.  I really wonder if some of our other pianos are going to be as cooperative.

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-502-9103
------------------------------

"I don't mind leeway of .005" in dip, but I don't want to see much more than that."

Early in my carreer I attended a grand action regulation class given by the late Bill Garlick , former instructor at NBSS and at that time the technical service rep at Steinway. When we got to aftertouch, he said that achieving aftertouch is more important than keydip. He said a pianist is not going to feel the difference in key dip of up to .010, but will feel the lack of after touch. 

So if you want to cheat, and remove a .010 punching, or even .005 more, you'll get the results you're looking for.  I have done it many times, and have never had a piano player tell me the dip is too deep.   

------------------------------
Willem "Wim" Blees, RPT
St. Augustine, FL 32095
Tnrwim@aol.com
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-15-2021 15:03
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

I have been taking some time to slow down and fuss with a couple of grand pianos in our university collection.  In working on the bench with these actions, I have been frustrated to some degree with the apparent inconsistency I have been dealing with from note to note as I have chased some kind of uniformity in the regulation.

I am now working in the piano, and have for this project abandoned the use of a weight on the keys to determine consistency of key dip and aftertouch.  I am finding the experience much more agreeable.  The pianos in question are a 1977 Mason & Hamlin CC and a 1981 Baldwin L.

I am starting by confirming (and adjusting, if necessary) key height and key dip.  I then dial in the hammer blow to a spec that emerges as workable in the process.  I really don't want to see anything less than 46mm.  (I'm accustomed to using .045" as my aftertouch spec, but on the Baldwin I've reduced it to .036 to achieve my desired hammer blow.) I then am refining the let-off so as to achieve what has been described in another thread here as ghosting - having the note sound softly when the key is played from a point where the jack has met the let-off button and the repetition lever surface has met the drop screw.  I'm not looking for something ridiculously close in terms of let-off, but I don't want to have to be really vigorous to get a sound either.

Once these adjustments have been completed, I insert a let-off gauge under the key and see what I've got.  I don't want let-off to precede contact, nor do I want to press particularly hard to move the note through let-off.

There is usually some fudging to be done, but I'm surprised at how much difference a little change can make.  Both actions have Crescendo punching at the front rail, so I've got a pretty steady point of reference.  I don't mind leeway of .005" in dip, but I don't want to see much more than that.  Again, I'm working with finger pressure rather than a fixed weight, so I suppose that is giving me a bit of leeway as well.  A bit of fudging can be done with let-off, but not much if I want the ghosting to have any kind of consistency.  The hammer line is also negotiable, to the degree that nothing is allowed to be obviously out of whack.  A little here goes a long way!

To my delight, I have not needed to accept much variation in how let-off feels at the front of the key with the gauge in place.  There is a little, but once the gauge is removed, I am imagining that the difference in final tactile sensation is not going to be discernible by the pianist.

I finished working through the Mason & Hamlin last Wednesday, and got halfway through the Baldwin today.  I really wonder if some of our other pianos are going to be as cooperative.

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-502-9103
------------------------------

I've also moved to prioritizing consistent aftertouch over key dip. Whenever I regulate a piano at the university now, I replace old punchings with crescendo punchings, and use a .045" gauge and the WNG key dip tool (without the float attached) as a consistent weight (eliminating the vagaries of inconsistent finger touch), and adjust punchings so that the key just achieves letoff. Wim (and Bill Garlick) are right, a pianist isn't going to detect minor differences in dip, but will notice if certain keys seem to stop a little short of the rest.

------------------------------
Adam Schulte-Bukowinski, RPT
Piano Technician
Glenn Korff School of Music
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-15-2021 15:56
From: Wim Blees
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

"I don't mind leeway of .005" in dip, but I don't want to see much more than that."

Early in my carreer I attended a grand action regulation class given by the late Bill Garlick , former instructor at NBSS and at that time the technical service rep at Steinway. When we got to aftertouch, he said that achieving aftertouch is more important than keydip. He said a pianist is not going to feel the difference in key dip of up to .010, but will feel the lack of after touch.

So if you want to cheat, and remove a .010 punching, or even .005 more, you'll get the results you're looking for.  I have done it many times, and have never had a piano player tell me the dip is too deep.   

------------------------------
Willem "Wim" Blees, RPT
St. Augustine, FL 32095
Tnrwim@aol.com

Original Message:
Sent: 11-15-2021 15:03
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

I have been taking some time to slow down and fuss with a couple of grand pianos in our university collection.  In working on the bench with these actions, I have been frustrated to some degree with the apparent inconsistency I have been dealing with from note to note as I have chased some kind of uniformity in the regulation.

I am now working in the piano, and have for this project abandoned the use of a weight on the keys to determine consistency of key dip and aftertouch.  I am finding the experience much more agreeable.  The pianos in question are a 1977 Mason & Hamlin CC and a 1981 Baldwin L.

I am starting by confirming (and adjusting, if necessary) key height and key dip.  I then dial in the hammer blow to a spec that emerges as workable in the process.  I really don't want to see anything less than 46mm.  (I'm accustomed to using .045" as my aftertouch spec, but on the Baldwin I've reduced it to .036 to achieve my desired hammer blow.) I then am refining the let-off so as to achieve what has been described in another thread here as ghosting - having the note sound softly when the key is played from a point where the jack has met the let-off button and the repetition lever surface has met the drop screw.  I'm not looking for something ridiculously close in terms of let-off, but I don't want to have to be really vigorous to get a sound either.

Once these adjustments have been completed, I insert a let-off gauge under the key and see what I've got.  I don't want let-off to precede contact, nor do I want to press particularly hard to move the note through let-off.

There is usually some fudging to be done, but I'm surprised at how much difference a little change can make.  Both actions have Crescendo punching at the front rail, so I've got a pretty steady point of reference.  I don't mind leeway of .005" in dip, but I don't want to see much more than that.  Again, I'm working with finger pressure rather than a fixed weight, so I suppose that is giving me a bit of leeway as well.  A bit of fudging can be done with let-off, but not much if I want the ghosting to have any kind of consistency.  The hammer line is also negotiable, to the degree that nothing is allowed to be obviously out of whack.  A little here goes a long way!

To my delight, I have not needed to accept much variation in how let-off feels at the front of the key with the gauge in place.  There is a little, but once the gauge is removed, I am imagining that the difference in final tactile sensation is not going to be discernible by the pianist.

I finished working through the Mason & Hamlin last Wednesday, and got halfway through the Baldwin today.  I really wonder if some of our other pianos are going to be as cooperative.

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-502-9103
------------------------------

Greetings, 
   I use the aftertouch priority method, too. I normally use a .040" punching as my "stop" , which allows a slightly firmer finger pressure to take the hammer just through let-off.  I set let-off to be as close as possible without the hammer being in the excursion zone of the string.  This is done by putting the damper on the sostenuto, striking the key twice with a forte blow, and then as quickly as possible raising the hammer to the string. I find it faster to have previously set the let-off too close,(so the hammer will lightly block) then, in setting the final, I am turning the button only downward until I reach the "miss" point. This will leave slightly greater let-off in the bass. The upper notes can be set by feeling the hammer touch the string on a slightly faster depression of the key and then turning the button down until I can feel the escapement without any string contact.  This usually winds up with 3/32" at most, on the upper strings.  Once the let-off is set, the after-touch will give me my dip.
A firmer punching and a firmer touch will both aid in consistency, and any of us that regulate often will have far more sensitivity here than a pianist.  
Regards,

------------------------------
Ed Foote RPT
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-16-2021 09:51
From: Adam Schulte-Bukowinski
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

I've also moved to prioritizing consistent aftertouch over key dip. Whenever I regulate a piano at the university now, I replace old punchings with crescendo punchings, and use a .045" gauge and the WNG key dip tool (without the float attached) as a consistent weight (eliminating the vagaries of inconsistent finger touch), and adjust punchings so that the key just achieves letoff. Wim (and Bill Garlick) are right, a pianist isn't going to detect minor differences in dip, but will notice if certain keys seem to stop a little short of the rest.

------------------------------
Adam Schulte-Bukowinski, RPT
Piano Technician
Glenn Korff School of Music
University of Nebraska at Lincoln

Original Message:
Sent: 11-15-2021 15:56
From: Wim Blees
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

"I don't mind leeway of .005" in dip, but I don't want to see much more than that."

Early in my carreer I attended a grand action regulation class given by the late Bill Garlick , former instructor at NBSS and at that time the technical service rep at Steinway. When we got to aftertouch, he said that achieving aftertouch is more important than keydip. He said a pianist is not going to feel the difference in key dip of up to .010, but will feel the lack of after touch.

So if you want to cheat, and remove a .010 punching, or even .005 more, you'll get the results you're looking for.  I have done it many times, and have never had a piano player tell me the dip is too deep.   

------------------------------
Willem "Wim" Blees, RPT
St. Augustine, FL 32095
Tnrwim@aol.com

Original Message:
Sent: 11-15-2021 15:03
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

I have been taking some time to slow down and fuss with a couple of grand pianos in our university collection.  In working on the bench with these actions, I have been frustrated to some degree with the apparent inconsistency I have been dealing with from note to note as I have chased some kind of uniformity in the regulation.

I am now working in the piano, and have for this project abandoned the use of a weight on the keys to determine consistency of key dip and aftertouch.  I am finding the experience much more agreeable.  The pianos in question are a 1977 Mason & Hamlin CC and a 1981 Baldwin L.

I am starting by confirming (and adjusting, if necessary) key height and key dip.  I then dial in the hammer blow to a spec that emerges as workable in the process.  I really don't want to see anything less than 46mm.  (I'm accustomed to using .045" as my aftertouch spec, but on the Baldwin I've reduced it to .036 to achieve my desired hammer blow.) I then am refining the let-off so as to achieve what has been described in another thread here as ghosting - having the note sound softly when the key is played from a point where the jack has met the let-off button and the repetition lever surface has met the drop screw.  I'm not looking for something ridiculously close in terms of let-off, but I don't want to have to be really vigorous to get a sound either.

Once these adjustments have been completed, I insert a let-off gauge under the key and see what I've got.  I don't want let-off to precede contact, nor do I want to press particularly hard to move the note through let-off.

There is usually some fudging to be done, but I'm surprised at how much difference a little change can make.  Both actions have Crescendo punching at the front rail, so I've got a pretty steady point of reference.  I don't mind leeway of .005" in dip, but I don't want to see much more than that.  Again, I'm working with finger pressure rather than a fixed weight, so I suppose that is giving me a bit of leeway as well.  A bit of fudging can be done with let-off, but not much if I want the ghosting to have any kind of consistency.  The hammer line is also negotiable, to the degree that nothing is allowed to be obviously out of whack.  A little here goes a long way!

To my delight, I have not needed to accept much variation in how let-off feels at the front of the key with the gauge in place.  There is a little, but once the gauge is removed, I am imagining that the difference in final tactile sensation is not going to be discernible by the pianist.

I finished working through the Mason & Hamlin last Wednesday, and got halfway through the Baldwin today.  I really wonder if some of our other pianos are going to be as cooperative.

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-502-9103
------------------------------

I believe that learning to set key travel to correspond to consistent aftertouch is very good sensitivity training. I don’t use key dip blocks or weights to set aftertouch because I prefer to feel what’s happening on each key with an aftertouch gauge. This helps train the tactile sensitivity.

The beauty of setting key travel by aftertouch is in its ability to overcome inconsistencies in parts wear, or manufacturing. The keys don’t have to be plate glass level, the knuckles don’t have to be precisely uniform, and the action ratio that will vary, even ever so slightly from key to key will end up feeling the “same.” Certainly, professional level skills require the best possible approximation of precision, but that is always an elusive game and will reach the point of diminishing returns before the illusion of perfection is obtained.

I first encountered adjusting key travel from aftertouch in a class taught by Don Mannino, and admittedly, the concept and implementation eluded me for some time until I had a better understanding of aftertouch.

The only time this method may be impractical is when there is no access from the front to the front pins (as in a glued in keyslip in uprights.) Though it could still be done, with ample patience.


Joe Wiencek
NYC


Original Message:
Sent: 11/16/2021 10:30:00 AM
From: Edward Foote
Subject: RE: Negotiating Aftertouch

Greetings, 
   I use the aftertouch priority method, too. I normally use a .040" punching as my "stop" , which allows a slightly firmer finger pressure to take the hammer just through let-off.  I set let-off to be as close as possible without the hammer being in the excursion zone of the string.  This is done by putting the damper on the sostenuto, striking the key twice with a forte blow, and then as quickly as possible raising the hammer to the string. I find it faster to have previously set the let-off too close,(so the hammer will lightly block) then, in setting the final, I am turning the button only downward until I reach the "miss" point. This will leave slightly greater let-off in the bass. The upper notes can be set by feeling the hammer touch the string on a slightly faster depression of the key and then turning the button down until I can feel the escapement without any string contact.  This usually winds up with 3/32" at most, on the upper strings.  Once the let-off is set, the after-touch will give me my dip.
A firmer punching and a firmer touch will both aid in consistency, and any of us that regulate often will have far more sensitivity here than a pianist.  
Regards,

------------------------------
Ed Foote RPT
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-16-2021 09:51
From: Adam Schulte-Bukowinski
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

I've also moved to prioritizing consistent aftertouch over key dip. Whenever I regulate a piano at the university now, I replace old punchings with crescendo punchings, and use a .045" gauge and the WNG key dip tool (without the float attached) as a consistent weight (eliminating the vagaries of inconsistent finger touch), and adjust punchings so that the key just achieves letoff. Wim (and Bill Garlick) are right, a pianist isn't going to detect minor differences in dip, but will notice if certain keys seem to stop a little short of the rest.

------------------------------
Adam Schulte-Bukowinski, RPT
Piano Technician
Glenn Korff School of Music
University of Nebraska at Lincoln

Original Message:
Sent: 11-15-2021 15:56
From: Wim Blees
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

"I don't mind leeway of .005" in dip, but I don't want to see much more than that."

Early in my carreer I attended a grand action regulation class given by the late Bill Garlick , former instructor at NBSS and at that time the technical service rep at Steinway. When we got to aftertouch, he said that achieving aftertouch is more important than keydip. He said a pianist is not going to feel the difference in key dip of up to .010, but will feel the lack of after touch.

So if you want to cheat, and remove a .010 punching, or even .005 more, you'll get the results you're looking for.  I have done it many times, and have never had a piano player tell me the dip is too deep.   

------------------------------
Willem "Wim" Blees, RPT
St. Augustine, FL 32095
Tnrwim@aol.com

Original Message:
Sent: 11-15-2021 15:03
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

I have been taking some time to slow down and fuss with a couple of grand pianos in our university collection.  In working on the bench with these actions, I have been frustrated to some degree with the apparent inconsistency I have been dealing with from note to note as I have chased some kind of uniformity in the regulation.

I am now working in the piano, and have for this project abandoned the use of a weight on the keys to determine consistency of key dip and aftertouch.  I am finding the experience much more agreeable.  The pianos in question are a 1977 Mason & Hamlin CC and a 1981 Baldwin L.

I am starting by confirming (and adjusting, if necessary) key height and key dip.  I then dial in the hammer blow to a spec that emerges as workable in the process.  I really don't want to see anything less than 46mm.  (I'm accustomed to using .045" as my aftertouch spec, but on the Baldwin I've reduced it to .036 to achieve my desired hammer blow.) I then am refining the let-off so as to achieve what has been described in another thread here as ghosting - having the note sound softly when the key is played from a point where the jack has met the let-off button and the repetition lever surface has met the drop screw.  I'm not looking for something ridiculously close in terms of let-off, but I don't want to have to be really vigorous to get a sound either.

Once these adjustments have been completed, I insert a let-off gauge under the key and see what I've got.  I don't want let-off to precede contact, nor do I want to press particularly hard to move the note through let-off.

There is usually some fudging to be done, but I'm surprised at how much difference a little change can make.  Both actions have Crescendo punching at the front rail, so I've got a pretty steady point of reference.  I don't mind leeway of .005" in dip, but I don't want to see much more than that.  Again, I'm working with finger pressure rather than a fixed weight, so I suppose that is giving me a bit of leeway as well.  A bit of fudging can be done with let-off, but not much if I want the ghosting to have any kind of consistency.  The hammer line is also negotiable, to the degree that nothing is allowed to be obviously out of whack.  A little here goes a long way!

To my delight, I have not needed to accept much variation in how let-off feels at the front of the key with the gauge in place.  There is a little, but once the gauge is removed, I am imagining that the difference in final tactile sensation is not going to be discernible by the pianist.

I finished working through the Mason & Hamlin last Wednesday, and got halfway through the Baldwin today.  I really wonder if some of our other pianos are going to be as cooperative.

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-502-9103
------------------------------

Not quite addressing your issue, but does the Baldwin have all original parts on it? I ask because I often find that Baldwin grands can have 3/8" dip and still achieve 1 7/8" blow. I have seen some Baldwin grands innocently regulated with .400 dip and 1 3/4" blow and the aftertouch is enormous.

------------------------------
Marc Abram
Highland MD
202-468-8270
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-15-2021 15:03
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

I have been taking some time to slow down and fuss with a couple of grand pianos in our university collection.  In working on the bench with these actions, I have been frustrated to some degree with the apparent inconsistency I have been dealing with from note to note as I have chased some kind of uniformity in the regulation.

I am now working in the piano, and have for this project abandoned the use of a weight on the keys to determine consistency of key dip and aftertouch.  I am finding the experience much more agreeable.  The pianos in question are a 1977 Mason & Hamlin CC and a 1981 Baldwin L.

I am starting by confirming (and adjusting, if necessary) key height and key dip.  I then dial in the hammer blow to a spec that emerges as workable in the process.  I really don't want to see anything less than 46mm.  (I'm accustomed to using .045" as my aftertouch spec, but on the Baldwin I've reduced it to .036 to achieve my desired hammer blow.) I then am refining the let-off so as to achieve what has been described in another thread here as ghosting - having the note sound softly when the key is played from a point where the jack has met the let-off button and the repetition lever surface has met the drop screw.  I'm not looking for something ridiculously close in terms of let-off, but I don't want to have to be really vigorous to get a sound either.

Once these adjustments have been completed, I insert a let-off gauge under the key and see what I've got.  I don't want let-off to precede contact, nor do I want to press particularly hard to move the note through let-off.

There is usually some fudging to be done, but I'm surprised at how much difference a little change can make.  Both actions have Crescendo punching at the front rail, so I've got a pretty steady point of reference.  I don't mind leeway of .005" in dip, but I don't want to see much more than that.  Again, I'm working with finger pressure rather than a fixed weight, so I suppose that is giving me a bit of leeway as well.  A bit of fudging can be done with let-off, but not much if I want the ghosting to have any kind of consistency.  The hammer line is also negotiable, to the degree that nothing is allowed to be obviously out of whack.  A little here goes a long way!

To my delight, I have not needed to accept much variation in how let-off feels at the front of the key with the gauge in place.  There is a little, but once the gauge is removed, I am imagining that the difference in final tactile sensation is not going to be discernible by the pianist.

I finished working through the Mason & Hamlin last Wednesday, and got halfway through the Baldwin today.  I really wonder if some of our other pianos are going to be as cooperative.

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-502-9103
------------------------------

The action of the Baldwin has been modified.  I have seen various recommendations for aftertouch on this forum.  Adam has suggested .045" above, and Edward .040".  David Love in an earlier thread suggested a test spacer of .030" or .040".  The aftertouch spec I have chosen is definitely within the zone in view of these suggestions.  I could have, alternatively, opted for just a little more key dip, but I was happy to stick with the 10.3mm spec with which I began this project.

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-502-9103
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-18-2021 22:33
From: Marc Abram
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

Not quite addressing your issue, but does the Baldwin have all original parts on it? I ask because I often find that Baldwin grands can have 3/8" dip and still achieve 1 7/8" blow. I have seen some Baldwin grands innocently regulated with .400 dip and 1 3/4" blow and the aftertouch is enormous.

------------------------------
Marc Abram
Highland MD
202-468-8270

Original Message:
Sent: 11-15-2021 15:03
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

I have been taking some time to slow down and fuss with a couple of grand pianos in our university collection.  In working on the bench with these actions, I have been frustrated to some degree with the apparent inconsistency I have been dealing with from note to note as I have chased some kind of uniformity in the regulation.

I am now working in the piano, and have for this project abandoned the use of a weight on the keys to determine consistency of key dip and aftertouch.  I am finding the experience much more agreeable.  The pianos in question are a 1977 Mason & Hamlin CC and a 1981 Baldwin L.

I am starting by confirming (and adjusting, if necessary) key height and key dip.  I then dial in the hammer blow to a spec that emerges as workable in the process.  I really don't want to see anything less than 46mm.  (I'm accustomed to using .045" as my aftertouch spec, but on the Baldwin I've reduced it to .036 to achieve my desired hammer blow.) I then am refining the let-off so as to achieve what has been described in another thread here as ghosting - having the note sound softly when the key is played from a point where the jack has met the let-off button and the repetition lever surface has met the drop screw.  I'm not looking for something ridiculously close in terms of let-off, but I don't want to have to be really vigorous to get a sound either.

Once these adjustments have been completed, I insert a let-off gauge under the key and see what I've got.  I don't want let-off to precede contact, nor do I want to press particularly hard to move the note through let-off.

There is usually some fudging to be done, but I'm surprised at how much difference a little change can make.  Both actions have Crescendo punching at the front rail, so I've got a pretty steady point of reference.  I don't mind leeway of .005" in dip, but I don't want to see much more than that.  Again, I'm working with finger pressure rather than a fixed weight, so I suppose that is giving me a bit of leeway as well.  A bit of fudging can be done with let-off, but not much if I want the ghosting to have any kind of consistency.  The hammer line is also negotiable, to the degree that nothing is allowed to be obviously out of whack.  A little here goes a long way!

To my delight, I have not needed to accept much variation in how let-off feels at the front of the key with the gauge in place.  There is a little, but once the gauge is removed, I am imagining that the difference in final tactile sensation is not going to be discernible by the pianist.

I finished working through the Mason & Hamlin last Wednesday, and got halfway through the Baldwin today.  I really wonder if some of our other pianos are going to be as cooperative.

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-502-9103
------------------------------

I'm not sure exactly how much aftertouch you want in this particular piano. I'm no concert pianist, but I can easily adapt to different pianos as long as they're consistent. The main thing about aftertouch, at least in my book, is that it is consistent. Honestly, I really doubt any pianist has the ability to tell the difference between 0.045" aftertouch and 0.040" aftertouch, as long as the whole piano is done evenly and consistently. 

If what you have works and is within a "normal" range of 0.030" and 0.050" of aftertouch, I'd just go with that.

------------------------------
Benjamin Sanchez, RPT
Piano Technician / Artisan
(256) 947-9999
www.professional-piano-services.com
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-19-2021 11:56
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

The action of the Baldwin has been modified.  I have seen various recommendations for aftertouch on this forum.  Adam has suggested .045" above, and Edward .040".  David Love in an earlier thread suggested a test spacer of .030" or .040".  The aftertouch spec I have chosen is definitely within the zone in view of these suggestions.  I could have, alternatively, opted for just a little more key dip, but I was happy to stick with the 10.3mm spec with which I began this project.

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-502-9103

Original Message:
Sent: 11-18-2021 22:33
From: Marc Abram
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

Not quite addressing your issue, but does the Baldwin have all original parts on it? I ask because I often find that Baldwin grands can have 3/8" dip and still achieve 1 7/8" blow. I have seen some Baldwin grands innocently regulated with .400 dip and 1 3/4" blow and the aftertouch is enormous.

------------------------------
Marc Abram
Highland MD
202-468-8270

Original Message:
Sent: 11-15-2021 15:03
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

I have been taking some time to slow down and fuss with a couple of grand pianos in our university collection.  In working on the bench with these actions, I have been frustrated to some degree with the apparent inconsistency I have been dealing with from note to note as I have chased some kind of uniformity in the regulation.

I am now working in the piano, and have for this project abandoned the use of a weight on the keys to determine consistency of key dip and aftertouch.  I am finding the experience much more agreeable.  The pianos in question are a 1977 Mason & Hamlin CC and a 1981 Baldwin L.

I am starting by confirming (and adjusting, if necessary) key height and key dip.  I then dial in the hammer blow to a spec that emerges as workable in the process.  I really don't want to see anything less than 46mm.  (I'm accustomed to using .045" as my aftertouch spec, but on the Baldwin I've reduced it to .036 to achieve my desired hammer blow.) I then am refining the let-off so as to achieve what has been described in another thread here as ghosting - having the note sound softly when the key is played from a point where the jack has met the let-off button and the repetition lever surface has met the drop screw.  I'm not looking for something ridiculously close in terms of let-off, but I don't want to have to be really vigorous to get a sound either.

Once these adjustments have been completed, I insert a let-off gauge under the key and see what I've got.  I don't want let-off to precede contact, nor do I want to press particularly hard to move the note through let-off.

There is usually some fudging to be done, but I'm surprised at how much difference a little change can make.  Both actions have Crescendo punching at the front rail, so I've got a pretty steady point of reference.  I don't mind leeway of .005" in dip, but I don't want to see much more than that.  Again, I'm working with finger pressure rather than a fixed weight, so I suppose that is giving me a bit of leeway as well.  A bit of fudging can be done with let-off, but not much if I want the ghosting to have any kind of consistency.  The hammer line is also negotiable, to the degree that nothing is allowed to be obviously out of whack.  A little here goes a long way!

To my delight, I have not needed to accept much variation in how let-off feels at the front of the key with the gauge in place.  There is a little, but once the gauge is removed, I am imagining that the difference in final tactile sensation is not going to be discernible by the pianist.

I finished working through the Mason & Hamlin last Wednesday, and got halfway through the Baldwin today.  I really wonder if some of our other pianos are going to be as cooperative.

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-502-9103
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11/19/2021 2:50:00 PM
From: Benjamin Sanchez
Subject: RE: Negotiating Aftertouch

I'm not sure exactly how much aftertouch you want in this particular piano. I'm no concert pianist, but I can easily adapt to different pianos as long as they're consistent. The main thing about aftertouch, at least in my book, is that it is consistent. Honestly, I really doubt any pianist has the ability to tell the difference between 0.045" aftertouch and 0.040" aftertouch, as long as the whole piano is done evenly and consistently. 

If what you have works and is within a "normal" range of 0.030" and 0.050" of aftertouch, I'd just go with that.

------------------------------
Benjamin Sanchez, RPT
Piano Technician / Artisan
(256) 947-9999
www.professional-piano-services.com
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-19-2021 11:56
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

The action of the Baldwin has been modified.  I have seen various recommendations for aftertouch on this forum.  Adam has suggested .045" above, and Edward .040".  David Love in an earlier thread suggested a test spacer of .030" or .040".  The aftertouch spec I have chosen is definitely within the zone in view of these suggestions.  I could have, alternatively, opted for just a little more key dip, but I was happy to stick with the 10.3mm spec with which I began this project.

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-502-9103

Original Message:
Sent: 11-18-2021 22:33
From: Marc Abram
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

Not quite addressing your issue, but does the Baldwin have all original parts on it? I ask because I often find that Baldwin grands can have 3/8" dip and still achieve 1 7/8" blow. I have seen some Baldwin grands innocently regulated with .400 dip and 1 3/4" blow and the aftertouch is enormous.

------------------------------
Marc Abram
Highland MD
202-468-8270

Original Message:
Sent: 11-15-2021 15:03
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: Negotiating Aftertouch

I have been taking some time to slow down and fuss with a couple of grand pianos in our university collection.  In working on the bench with these actions, I have been frustrated to some degree with the apparent inconsistency I have been dealing with from note to note as I have chased some kind of uniformity in the regulation.

I am now working in the piano, and have for this project abandoned the use of a weight on the keys to determine consistency of key dip and aftertouch.  I am finding the experience much more agreeable.  The pianos in question are a 1977 Mason & Hamlin CC and a 1981 Baldwin L.

I am starting by confirming (and adjusting, if necessary) key height and key dip.  I then dial in the hammer blow to a spec that emerges as workable in the process.  I really don't want to see anything less than 46mm.  (I'm accustomed to using .045" as my aftertouch spec, but on the Baldwin I've reduced it to .036 to achieve my desired hammer blow.) I then am refining the let-off so as to achieve what has been described in another thread here as ghosting - having the note sound softly when the key is played from a point where the jack has met the let-off button and the repetition lever surface has met the drop screw.  I'm not looking for something ridiculously close in terms of let-off, but I don't want to have to be really vigorous to get a sound either.

Once these adjustments have been completed, I insert a let-off gauge under the key and see what I've got.  I don't want let-off to precede contact, nor do I want to press particularly hard to move the note through let-off.

There is usually some fudging to be done, but I'm surprised at how much difference a little change can make.  Both actions have Crescendo punching at the front rail, so I've got a pretty steady point of reference.  I don't mind leeway of .005" in dip, but I don't want to see much more than that.  Again, I'm working with finger pressure rather than a fixed weight, so I suppose that is giving me a bit of leeway as well.  A bit of fudging can be done with let-off, but not much if I want the ghosting to have any kind of consistency.  The hammer line is also negotiable, to the degree that nothing is allowed to be obviously out of whack.  A little here goes a long way!

To my delight, I have not needed to accept much variation in how let-off feels at the front of the key with the gauge in place.  There is a little, but once the gauge is removed, I am imagining that the difference in final tactile sensation is not going to be discernible by the pianist.

I finished working through the Mason & Hamlin last Wednesday, and got halfway through the Baldwin today.  I really wonder if some of our other pianos are going to be as cooperative.

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-502-9103
------------------------------