CAUT

My friend and fellow RPT Russell Schmidt asked for my input on rebuilding the action on a Baldwin SD-1 (1937), the predecessor of the SD-6, the predecessor of the SD-10. It was rebuilt about 30 years ago with a new soundboard, block etc. by the late Claire Davies, a well respected local rebuilder.

The complaint has been that the piano is difficult to play and has no dynamic range. Indeed, when I played it I immediately thought, "Boy ,there's a lot of inertia in there." It feels very heavy. It seemed like a classic case of too-heavy hammers. I expected to find keys full of lead to compensate. Measurably, the touch is quite light (45 to 50 DW).

However, the keys turned out to have little lead and hammer strike weight is in medium range.

I did David Stanwood's test of temporarily setting C4 front weight to 27 and finding the hammer strike weight that gets you 38 balance weight. The existing C4 hammer tested to be the perfect weight.

SOMETHING ELSE IS GOING ON HERE!

I happened to have a set of original hammers and shanks from a 1965 SD-6 and compared the two. The hammers on our SD-1 are further out on their shanks. Also, note 1 measures to be further out on its shank than #88.  Have the bass strike points wandered from their original specs?

Any other ideas?

Check damper timing and make sure they aren't picking up too early (or that the damper upstop rail isn't set too low).  Test by playing with the damper pedal held down and see if there is a discernible difference when the pedal is engaged versus not.  The damper lever springs can also be set with too muich tension.  Or both problems might exist.  That will defiinitely in poor feel.  Since the data you have provided indicates there isn't an inertia problem in the set up I'm inclined to think it's something else.  Sometimes action elevations can be wrong and crteate a problem but my experience is that they have to be pretty far off for that to happen.  Friction levels seem OK given the data you've provided as well. 

Lack of dynamic range is likely a voicing issue, possibly a hammer choice issue.  You didn't mention what's on there.  Might be helpful.  

My friend and fellow RPT Russell Schmidt asked for my input on rebuilding the action on a Baldwin SD-1 (1937), the predecessor of the SD-6, the predecessor of the SD-10. It was rebuilt about 30 years ago with a new soundboard, block etc. by the late Claire Davies, a well respected local rebuilder.

The complaint has been that the piano is difficult to play and has no dynamic range. Indeed, when I played it I immediately thought, "Boy ,there's a lot of inertia in there." It feels very heavy. It seemed like a classic case of too-heavy hammers. I expected to find keys full of lead to compensate. Measurably, the touch is quite light (45 to 50 DW).

However, the keys turned out to have little lead and hammer strike weight is in medium range.

I did David Stanwood's test of temporarily setting C4 front weight to 27 and finding the hammer strike weight that gets you 38 balance weight. The existing C4 hammer tested to be the perfect weight.

SOMETHING ELSE IS GOING ON HERE!

I happened to have a set of original hammers and shanks from a 1965 SD-6 and compared the two. The hammers on our SD-1 are further out on their shanks. Also, note 1 measures to be further out on its shank than #88.  Have the bass strike points wandered from their original specs?

Any other ideas?

My friend and fellow RPT Russell Schmidt asked for my input on rebuilding the action on a Baldwin SD-1 (1937), the predecessor of the SD-6, the predecessor of the SD-10. It was rebuilt about 30 years ago with a new soundboard, block etc. by the late Claire Davies, a well respected local rebuilder.

The complaint has been that the piano is difficult to play and has no dynamic range. Indeed, when I played it I immediately thought, "Boy ,there's a lot of inertia in there." It feels very heavy. It seemed like a classic case of too-heavy hammers. I expected to find keys full of lead to compensate. Measurably, the touch is quite light (45 to 50 DW).

However, the keys turned out to have little lead and hammer strike weight is in medium range.

I did David Stanwood's test of temporarily setting C4 front weight to 27 and finding the hammer strike weight that gets you 38 balance weight. The existing C4 hammer tested to be the perfect weight.

SOMETHING ELSE IS GOING ON HERE!

I happened to have a set of original hammers and shanks from a 1965 SD-6 and compared the two. The hammers on our SD-1 are further out on their shanks. Also, note 1 measures to be further out on its shank than #88.  Have the bass strike points wandered from their original specs?

Any other ideas?

My friend and fellow RPT Russell Schmidt asked for my input on rebuilding the action on a Baldwin SD-1 (1937), the predecessor of the SD-6, the predecessor of the SD-10. It was rebuilt about 30 years ago with a new soundboard, block etc. by the late Claire Davies, a well respected local rebuilder.

The complaint has been that the piano is difficult to play and has no dynamic range. Indeed, when I played it I immediately thought, "Boy ,there's a lot of inertia in there." It feels very heavy. It seemed like a classic case of too-heavy hammers. I expected to find keys full of lead to compensate. Measurably, the touch is quite light (45 to 50 DW).

However, the keys turned out to have little lead and hammer strike weight is in medium range.

I did David Stanwood's test of temporarily setting C4 front weight to 27 and finding the hammer strike weight that gets you 38 balance weight. The existing C4 hammer tested to be the perfect weight.

SOMETHING ELSE IS GOING ON HERE!

I happened to have a set of original hammers and shanks from a 1965 SD-6 and compared the two. The hammers on our SD-1 are further out on their shanks. Also, note 1 measures to be further out on its shank than #88.  Have the bass strike points wandered from their original specs?

Any other ideas?

Yesterday Russell checked strikepoint throughout the piano and found that all hammers except a few at the top need to be further in on their shanks in order to sound best. This is probably key.

My friend and fellow RPT Russell Schmidt asked for my input on rebuilding the action on a Baldwin SD-1 (1937), the predecessor of the SD-6, the predecessor of the SD-10. It was rebuilt about 30 years ago with a new soundboard, block etc. by the late Claire Davies, a well respected local rebuilder.

The complaint has been that the piano is difficult to play and has no dynamic range. Indeed, when I played it I immediately thought, "Boy ,there's a lot of inertia in there." It feels very heavy. It seemed like a classic case of too-heavy hammers. I expected to find keys full of lead to compensate. Measurably, the touch is quite light (45 to 50 DW).

However, the keys turned out to have little lead and hammer strike weight is in medium range.

I did David Stanwood's test of temporarily setting C4 front weight to 27 and finding the hammer strike weight that gets you 38 balance weight. The existing C4 hammer tested to be the perfect weight.

SOMETHING ELSE IS GOING ON HERE!

I happened to have a set of original hammers and shanks from a 1965 SD-6 and compared the two. The hammers on our SD-1 are further out on their shanks. Also, note 1 measures to be further out on its shank than #88.  Have the bass strike points wandered from their original specs?

Any other ideas?