Pianotech

Expand all | Collapse all

Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

  • 1.  Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 25 days ago

    Can anyone give an explanation for why the jack and knuckle should be aligned at the rear edge, and not further under the jack?  

    If going shallower under the knuckle, it will of course cheat out, trip early, lose power, etc.  But I don't recall ever hearing a reason that the jack couldn't be positioned deeper under the knuckle core – assuming that other operations are not impeded when doing so.



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 25 days ago
    Off the top of my head, you'd be increasing friction at the time of escapement.  So you'd probably start to feel more resistance at the key, increase knuckle wear, and maybe it could get a little hard on the jack toe if you really overdid it.





  • 3.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 25 days ago

    Why do/would you want to?  What are you suspecting you'd achieve?  As is, I allow some latitude for allignment of the back edge of jack and knuckle core ( slightly forward of back edge of knuckle core), especially if existing knuckles are large or worn/flattened, but I'd never actually admit it.



    ------------------------------
    David Skolnik [RPT]
    Hastings-on-Hudson NY
    (917) 589-2625
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 25 days ago

    The most complete answer to your question is contained in a really great article written by Jason Cassel in the November 2025 issue of the Journal.  Read all the way to the end for the "ah-ha" moment you're looking for.



    ------------------------------
    Daniel DeBiasio
    Technical Education & Support
    ddebiasio@steinway.com
    718-267-3229
    Steinway & Sons
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 25 days ago

    Thanks everyone for your insights!

    To answer your question David, and this also relates to the article you cited, Daniel – and thanks for directing me to it, as I've been behind on reading the Journal.

    I've had trouble getting enough drop after establishing simultaneous escapement, on more than one action.  Perhaps I'm not properly unlocking the three padlocks, or there are complications with worn action parts.  But exploring the issue caused me to stumble across a parameter I haven't ever heard discussed.

    I am coming to believe that the behavior of drop, within the scope of simultaneous escapement, can (and perhaps, should) be manipulated.  I've realized that, while maintaining simultaneous escapement, the distance of drop that occurs is related to the distance the jack must travel to fully release the knuckle.  Or rather, simultaneous escapement must occur sooner when the jack toe hits its button sooner, which is what occurs when the jack is positioned further under the knuckle.  This results in a greater difference in hammer position at let off vs drop (again, while maintaining sim. esc.).

    In the same spirit of setting regulation adjustments based upon interactions and behaviors rather than specs and gauges, as Jason puts forth in the aforementioned article...
    Aside from the problem of sometimes having not enough drop across the whole action, I've also observed differences in drop between notes, even on actions that do have enough drop. Some notes I'd like to increase, and other's I'd like to decrease just a little bit, but I don't want to mess up the simultaneous escapement.  This discrepancy in drop behavior, I think, is the result of inconsistent jack vs knuckle behavior.  Not all knuckles are created the same.  We have been setting jack position based on a visual alignment, but this can result in inconsistent drop behavior.  So… jack-knuckle alignment could (should!) be based upon creating consistent and proper drop, rather than entirely based on what position it appears to be sitting beneath the knuckle core.  (Again, this is entirely based upon maintaining simultaneous escapement.)



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 24 days ago

    You might try the article 

    Action Spread... What's all the Hubbub? By Jim Ialeggio, Piano Technicians Journal / April 2019



    ------------------------------
    Steven Rosenthal RPT
    Honolulu HI
    (808) 521-7129
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 24 days ago

    Thank you – I had been looking for Jim's article.  I actually took this class at the Tuscon convention, and remembered things differently from the article, so this clarifies my understanding there.  Now that I'm refreshed, I don't find anything in here that presents an issue.  Shifting the jack position doesn't change the "safe" and "fatal" thresholds, as the shank rest position remains the same.  However, this got me thinking that incorrect spread and/or differential could be a contributing/determining factor in why certain actions aren't delivering appropriate drop w/ simultaneous escapement.  



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 21 days ago

    Well, Daniel.  I now realize that when you said "read all the way to the end..." you were very likely referring to the end of Part 2 of Jason's article, or rather, the end of the complete article.  Part 1 finished with the description of jack and rep lever start/stop, and I thought this was what you were referring to (the article kinda said it's an "ah-ha" thing to be aware of.)

    I'd like to now advertise my foolishness to this community, and admit that I did not check the rep lever center friction.  Nobody called me out on this!  Jason clearly identified this in the article as an end-of-the-line reason why there would be incorrect drop behavior when all other parameters are correct.  The existing tension was 2-3g.  I re-pinned to 8-9g.  Lo and behold, more spring tension required, creates lost motion between jack and knuckle.  To correct that lost motion, the top of the rep lever (which hits the drop/stop screw) is lowered so that the jack peeks through the window more, meaning that the drop/stop screw must also be lowered to meet the simultaneous escapement point.  It doesn't matter where the rep lever starts with regard to drop level, it matters where it ends.  

    So, Steven Rosenthal – You were correct that I was indeed dealing with a symptom of a problem elsewhere in the system.

    I'm still interested in what knowledge is out there about the benefits or pitfalls of either establishing simultaneous stopping points of the jack toe and rep lever, or not establishing it. 



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 13 days ago

    Hi Robin,

    I apologize I haven't kept up with the activity on this thread, (and I'm still not caught up) but I wanted to reply to your question.

    My recommendation to read Jason Cassel's 11/25 article was made specifically because of how it answered your original question with the table at the end of part one. I see that your question gained nuance as the thread developed.

    My personal opinion about the desirable gram resistance in the balancier actually differs a great deal from what Jason recommends in part 2. I don't mean to highlight a disagreement here because I don't intend to detract from the series which I still think is fantastic.  However, the thing I find most interesting is that you stumbled upon an inconsistency with the spring strength and resulting inconsistency in balancier height only after the balancier pinning was changed. This blind spot might instead be an opportunity to rethink how to approach the butterfly spring which is a topic I will return to.

    I believe an action can function very well with 2g or less in the balancier, and might even be preferable for many reasons, but it requires treating the springs slightly differently than what you might be used to. If you try to eliminate the feeling of a "bump" in the key when checking spring tension, read on.  

    As an example to highlight my point, all the action parts Louis Renner GmbH manufactures specifically for Steinway & Sons, the target spec for every action center including the balancier is 2g (+/- 1g).

    After stifling or indulging the knee-jerk reaction that this spec can't possibly be ideal and must either be woefully misinformed, or the result of some bizarre cost-cutting measure, I encourage you to look for the potential wisdom in establishing such a spec.

    Now a question is "If the main function of the balancier (established by Scott Murphy's excellent high speed video series referenced in Jason's article) is to press against the knuckle to reset the key, would adding friction to resist this function be advantageous?"

    Now I've heard the rationale that due to the compound nature of the spring, firmer balancier pinning allows the fly to reset faster. After watching the video again carefully, it's not clear this is ever much of a concern as the balancier is already meeting much more resistance than the fly as it works against the knuckle to reset the key. With the fly and balancier pinned equally, the fly would still encounter much less resistance than the balancier.   

    Another rationale given is that the balancier spring must be strong enough to lift the hammer but without propelling it to the strings. In the video, we don't see the balancier lifting the hammer at all when the key is released.  This "lifting" only occurs when the backcheck is disengaged and the key is prevented from returning either intentionally by a technician (to judge the speed by which the key will reset using the hammer as a proxy, I.E. setting springs) or incidentally in the course of playing.

    The most convincing rationale is that the balancier pinning acts as a shock absorber against the feel of the spring, but is this feeling actually necessary to insulate against? is there a cost or trade-off associated with a firm balancier pinning?

    Piano technicians are often instructed to set the springs so the hammer rises without feeling a bump in the key. This is where I believe the main disconnect in our collective understanding occurs. I believe that the high friction balancier recommendation (which is a relatively recent trend) goes hand in hand with the recommendation to chase away any tactile sensations felt during spring setting.

    If your balancier pinning is 2g (+/-1g) and you chase away the tactile sensation felt in the key, this will almost certainly cause you to set your springs too weak which can lead to all sorts of inconsistencies including the one you discovered (which was difficulty setting consistent balancier height.) What should be attempted instead is to set the spring so the hammer rises as fast as possible without bouncing after the apex.  These two parameters set a very narrow but accurate band that causes the technician to naturally taper the "speed" of the springs from slower in the bass to faster in the treble, but when set correctly, you will certainly feel a slight feeling of the hammer bump in your finger. With enough practice you can feel and distinguish the hammer bump from the undesirable hammer bounce, which also has a simultaneous visual  component.

    Now if you mentioned the manufacturer of the piano I might have missed it, but here are some potential benefits to working with low friction action centers as they are.

    • It is more stable, and your springs will continue to behave predictably.  Uncontaminated action centers in stable environments tend to reach an equilibrium through wear at around 2g (+/-1g)
    • It saves time that might be more efficiently spent improving something else 
    • at least with Steinway action parts, it preserves the original burnished edge center pin with the notched middle which can resist "walking" during extreme humidity swings. 
    • It might be in line with the manufacturers design intention

    Now to try and catch up on the rest of the conversation… 

    Thanks for the discussion!



    ------------------------------
    Daniel DeBiasio
    Technical Education & Support
    ddebiasio@steinway.com
    718-267-3229
    Steinway & Sons
    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 10 days ago

    Daniel, thank you so very much for your thorough, thoughtful, and informative reply!  It's also nice to be part of a community that can discuss differences in approach without invalidating others' approaches.  I've read your reply a number of times now, and think I've fit it all into a new crease forming in my smooth brain.

    Glad to know that I actually did find your intended point at first.  And thank you for confirming that indeed it is a relatively new approach to increase the balancier center friction.  The action I'm working on that moved me to post here is a Kawai RX-2, but I have had the issue of not achieving enough drop with simultaneous escapement (or perhaps I should say, drop-screw letoff-button simultaneous contact, nodding at you David!) on multiple actions.  Based on your reply: perhaps this was always a cause of not enough butterfly spring tension, which required the rep lever to be set higher.  With all the wisdom distilled in this forum from you and others, as well as Jason's excellent article/class/approach as a guide, I'm looking forward to experimenting with this further.

    You said that working with low friction action centers is more stable – my understanding of why is that 1) lower friction centers are less likely to increase or decrease their friction over time, and 2) higher friction will dampen the behavior of the spring, meaning that apparently consistent hammer-second-lift behavior will be achieved despite disparate spring tensions.  Is that right?

    As for all of the rationals you stated for why to increase the friction, compared against the sacrificed – I absolutely agree that it's not a compelling-enough compromise to justify increasing the friction.  However: there's the other reason - my followup comment to your original reply, the one at the end of part II of Jason's article – to achieve enough drop with simultaneous escapement.  You suggested it comes from the rep spring actually being too weak, with the approach of eliminating the feel of the bump as the wrong goal for setting the tension.  I believe you!  But I am confounded, because I've always set it higher than this, with indeed being able to feel it in the key.  It's very possible I still had the tension too low in those cases, and I also was not checking rep lever center friction when things worked or didn't.  So I suspect I've just learned some very valuable things about regulation.

    Thanks again for your thoughtful and in-depth reply!



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 11.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 24 days ago

    It seems to me that moving the jack further back under the knuckle might slightly increase resistance and perhaps power, while moving it further out might increase speed and lighten touch.  But I might also guess that the required amounts of movement would be in the order of small fractions of a mm.

    I need to review Jim Ialeggio, Piano Technicians Journal / April 2019 and the Jason Cassel article in the November 2025 issue.



    ------------------------------
    Blaine Hebert RPT
    Duarte CA
    (626) 390-0512
    ------------------------------



  • 12.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 24 days ago

    Agreed.  Because it takes longer distance of key travel between the start and end of the knuckle's release, the player will feel that bump sooner in the dip.  Whether or not friction actually does increase a significant amount, the player likely would perceive a heavier touch.

    But you're right, with the minimal experimenting I've done, it seems that 1mm further behind the knuckle is the upper limit needed to get the change I'm seeking. And to that point... if a fraction of a mm makes a significant difference, we can expect that visual alignment leaves plenty of room for error.



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 13.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 24 days ago

    So... what we should be doing is asking our better players to test their piano before and after we reset the jack to knuckle distance both forward and back and see if they can feel a difference or have a preference.  It doesn't have to be the entire piano, perhaps just a middle octave to see an effect.

    My bet is that there would be an effect, but the player won't be able to determine their preference or they would just be guessing.



    ------------------------------
    Blaine Hebert RPT
    Duarte CA
    (626) 390-0512
    ------------------------------



  • 14.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 23 days ago

    I would like to perform that test.  Perhaps that's what I should have done before flapping my mouth!  I'll try to determine a delta for the max spread of letoff range. And maybe that could help measure something of a player's touch sensitivity.

    It seems like there isn't an established functional reason to align the jack and knuckle core rears to be flush.  Putting aside the potential for some difference in touch – the most compelling reasons seem to be: having a target for where to place it, and "we've always done it this way and it makes sense".  

    Anyone out there willing to disagree?



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 15.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 23 days ago

    Robin, regarding an established function. It seems to me that when the jack is aligned with the core, the surface area of the jack will steadily diminish as it makes its transit. If it is set behind the core, the surface area will momentarily increase and then decrease after it passes the alignment with the core. Theoretically this could be felt by the player. I suppose the condition of the knuckle comes into play here, the intent is for a rounded knuckle, not a flat one.



    ------------------------------
    Steven Rosenthal RPT
    Honolulu HI
    (808) 521-7129
    ------------------------------



  • 16.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 23 days ago

    Good call, Steven.  I can absolutely see that being the case.  I gave your theory a quick test – check out the results, which may or may not be conclusive:

    First, Kawai action. 

    1) Jack is "traditionally" aligned with the knuckle, simultaneous escapement established, but no drop whatsoever is occurring.  You can see a tiny change where it hits what tried to be letoff.

    image

    2) Jack is "traditionally" aligned with the knuckle, and we've established an ideal drop, but sacrificing simultaneous escapement.  You can see where the rep lever comes into contact before the jack.  

    image
    3) Now the jack is "functionally" aligned with the knuckle to establish an "ideal" drop and simultaneous escapement. This replicates the amount of drop we had in #2.  Notice that there's only one bump due to simultaneous escapement, and that total required touchweight is about 40g higher at letoff.  So this lends good evidence toward your hypothesis.
    image
    4) Just for comparison, here's the jack placed even further back beneath the knuckle, simultaneous escapement not quite established to better compare with #2, but now far too much drop along with the jack toe hitting the button at least 1mm sooner.  And it now maxes out at about 60g higher than #2.  Further evidence towards what you said.
    image
    But then I measured a different action to different results...
     



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 17.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 16 days ago

    Edit to this: I have been saying double escapement, and meant simultaneous escapement every time.  I'm referring to regulating in the action in a way that the jack toe and rep lever hit their button/screw at exactly the same time: simultaneous escapement.



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 18.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 16 days ago

    It is double escapement. Escapement from the jack and escapement from the balancier. You want it simultaneous.



    ------------------------------
    Larry Messerly, RPT
    Bringing Harmony to Homes
    www.lacrossepianotuning.com
    ljmesserly@gmail.com
    928-899-7292
    ------------------------------



  • 19.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 15 days ago

    I do want it simultaneous!  But above I'm describing achieving or not achieving simultaneous "double escapement", shortened to simultaneous escapement.



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 20.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 15 days ago

    Robin and All,

    IMHO, "double escapement" has been a misnomer since the day Errard coined it.

    David G. Hughes, RPT

    Baltimore Chapter



    ------------------------------
    David Hughes RPT
    Vintage Case Parts
    Glyndon MD
    (443) 522-2201
    ------------------------------



  • 21.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 23 days ago

    Now, the Baldwin action, with the angled jack tops:

    1) With traditional jack alignment flush to knuckle core, simultaneous escapement works just fine:

    image
    2)  Then I only lowered drop, to destroy simultaneous escapement.  The jack hump stays almost the same, but with the rep lever stopping sooner.  Touchweight max is close enough that I'll call it the same.  So it looks like spreading out jack and rep lever contact does not really influence the touchweight required to go through letoff.
    image
    3) Different experiment, different note.  Bottom of tenor so it's a bit heavier. Here's everything properly regulated and working with simultaneous escapement, just like #1 above:
    image
    4) Now, the jack is moved way back under the knuckle, and simultaneous escapement re-established.  Touchweight max stays the same, which now goes against the theory that greater jack travel distance may increase friction.  However, it's an angled jack top which might help friction.  But we also have an additional 1mm of key stroke with increased touchweight.
    image
    One last thought... the Baldwin's touchweight at letoff was heavier than the Kawai every time (except for the extreme last Kawai example).  Maybe it's best to not draw any conclusions yet about touchweight through/at letoff.
    Actually, here's the last thought: What I've seen through this little experiment doesn't convince me that these changes in touchweight (due to friction or otherwise) are the reason that we align jacks to knuckle cores.  I'm looking for a flaming bullet! ...or however the saying goes.



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 22.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 23 days ago

    It's a good question.  I do believe that this adjustment is under ideal conditions, and mostly "it just works".  On some Baldwin grands (the old American models), I would regularly find the hammers "cheating" and losing power, and the only cure was setting the jacks further under the knuckle.  The test is to hold down the hammer while pushing down on the key through the key stroke.  You can easily tell if there's cheating going on.  I don't claim to know why this is, specific to those Baldwins.  Maybe it's the nap of the buckskin is in a different direction.  Who knows.  The main thing is, it's just got to work.  Flat knuckles changes a lot in the regulation process, and friction there will affect the touch if the jack is too far under the knuckle.  Lubrication there can also affect the regulation because your rep spring also gets involved, and sometimes lubing the knuckles and wippens will reveal that the rep spring is too strong.



    ------------------------------
    Paul McCloud, RPT
    Accutone Piano Service
    www.AccutonePianoService.com
    pavadasa@gmail.com
    ------------------------------



  • 23.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 23 days ago

    Thanks for your thoughts about this, Paul.  I just did a little experiment, with reply about in an above comment.  I noticed that this Baldwin has angled jack tops.  Perhaps that influenced the hammers cheating out that you experienced?  I'm also going to keep in mind what you said about the buckskin nap when I do more experimenting.

    I was actually trying to see if the rep spring had any influence over my "not getting enough drop with double escapement" problem, so I'll do some testing with lubing the knuckles and other parts, and perhaps it's a good idea to also test high and low frictions on the rep lever pinning.  Thanks for the perspective!



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 24.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 23 days ago

    Robin, the reason your question raises my interest is because it makes me wonder if you're addressing the symptom and not the cause; something I've done may times causing me eventually to do 88 times x redo's.

    Mechanically, having the jack start at right angles to the hammer shank, which is what the knuckle core represents, makes sense to me intuitively, in terms of power it seems optimal, that beginning of the stroke is where you're overcoming inertia. And the issue you're addressing is at the other end, the drop.

    Maybe you're right that it's okay to fudge a little, but that doesn't seem like common knowledge to my recollection. What is common knowledge is that on some pianos, it's necessary to exceed the specs on key height. You haven't mentioned key height, can I assume you're setting that exactly to spec? Maybe if you fudge there you won't have to fudge what is generally considered a hard and fast rule.



    ------------------------------
    Steven Rosenthal RPT
    Honolulu HI
    (808) 521-7129
    ------------------------------



  • 25.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 22 days ago

    Thanks for the insights, Steven.  I am indeed hoping to figure out if you're right about a cause for the problem that I'm overlooking.   The jack and shank maintaining a right angle makes sense to me too – and the Jim Laleggio article that Blaine cited really makes a clear case for this.  But my intuition tells me that as long as the shank/knuckle right-angle remains on the safe side of the jack center pin, it wouldn't change inertia because the angle of force between the jack center and the knuckle remains the same, nor does it cause the converging-then-diverging direction of force problem from the article.  But those are both things I'll want to check now that you've brought it to my awareness.

    The original symptom is having not enough drop with simultaneous escapement, and I was seeking to find a property that influences the relationship and range of drop/letoff.  Positioning the jack further under the knuckle does increase the amount of drop that will occur (after sim. esc. is re-established).  But you're right, there should be another more fundamental cause, because plenty of actions have exactly enough drop with sim. esc.

    Glad to know that this isn't common knowledge to you – I'd never heard of it either.  Still looking for any further insights!



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 26.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 21 days ago

    Following up on Steven's point about right angles, let me share how I think about it. Others can correct me if I make a mistake. 

    If the jack is too far under the knuckle and isn't 90⁰ to the hammer shank, it will start pushing up kind of backwards. This increases the "weight" feel by a lot. And, if you can't get it at a 90⁰ relationship with the hammer shank while being properly aligned to the knuckle, something else is wrong. 



    ------------------------------
    Maggie Jusiel, RPT
    Athens, WV
    (304)952-8615
    mags@timandmaggie.net
    ------------------------------



  • 27.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 16 days ago

    Hi Maggie!

    In the mentioned article from Jim Laleggio, it seems that the jack tender's angle is not specifically the functioning interaction (given that it is positioned within a range that it drive the knuckle properly).   Rather, it is the ≤90º relationship between the shank at the knuckle core and the rotational axis (center pin) of the jack which describes the intersecting point as a diverging interaction.  Prior to reading the article a few days ago, I was thinking about it the same way you just described.  But in practice it would seem that, like you said, the jack should align/work properly at 90º if the relationships are correct, so everything I said becomes a moot point, and what you described will validate whether or not things are aligned properly.



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 28.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 22 days ago

    Robin,

    Below is a letter to the editor of The Journal that I wrote in December 2025. I made the decision to pull it from publication - it was slated for the February 2026 edition. Perhaps you may find it of interest.

                    "With reference to Jason Cassel, RPT's method of regulating grand piano jack alignment in the November 2025 Journal, I believe there is a more reliable and finite method that does not rely on parallax eyeballing, a temporary jig, or depressing the repetition lever.

                    With the jack "ballparked" under the knuckle, perhaps a tad too far to the rear of the action, the hammer is restrained from rising while the key is forcefully pushed downward, thereby jamming the action. With repeated iterations the jack is progressively adjusted father toward the front of the action until the jack skips out from under the knuckle. This establishes the cheating threshold for that key. The jack is then set back under the knuckle just far enough that the jack will not cheat under the stiffest key actuation. This method was endorsed by Norm Neblett, RPT who Jason references in his article, and who appreciated my broadcasting of the technique in my convention classes, as I still do.

                    I feel this is the most certain way of dynamically establishing jack placement, as it inherently takes into consideration knuckle nap and diameter, jack top lubricity, and minor deviations in repetition lever height from note to note, proprietary to each key's mechanism, and is not an 88-key dogma of how a jack is supposed to address a knuckle. The method ensures the jack dwells under the knuckle for the shortest period of time, having to travel the least required distance both to and fro to do its job, thus reducing friction, benefitting repetition, and resulting in a buttery key feel. Further, it sports the fringe benefits of expedience in regulation and elimination of setup and tedium.

                    Indeed, this method is akin to Jason's excellent advice on the setting let-off later in the same article."

    David G. Hughes, RPT

    Baltimore Chapter



    ------------------------------
    David Hughes RPT
    Vintage Case Parts
    Glyndon MD
    (443) 522-2201
    ------------------------------



  • 29.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 22 days ago

    Thank you for this, Mr. Hughes!

    Best,

    Alan



    ------------------------------
    Alan Eder, RPT
    Herb Alpert School of Music
    California Institute of the Arts
    Valencia, CA
    661.904.6483
    ------------------------------



  • 30.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 22 days ago

    Thanks David, I appreciate your reply and the applied method of your approach.  Regardless of what I conclude about my "drop-window vs simultaneous escapement" inquisition, I'll be applying your method in the future. 

    Since your approach is a "set by function, not by visual", do you happen to recall any particular trend of where your jacks ended up working best?  I'm wondering if the range of proper function extended to the point that some action's jacks were noticeably shallow or deep of the knuckle core.  Or perhaps it was overall more of a, "pretty much flush with the knuckle, with a little variation here and there,"?

    "...having to travel the least required distance both to and fro to do its job... benefitting repetition"  That right there could be a deal killer for what I've been exploring.  I'm very glad to have this knowledge in my pocket.

    I'd appreciate if you'd weigh in on this: 1)  Do you have any opinions about the benefit (or possibly lack thereof) of simultaneous escapement?  2) If you have done sim. esc., do you find that it always works (that you have functional drop)?  Do you know of any property in action geometry that affects the distance of drop when sim. esc. is established?

    If sim. esc. isn't held up as terribly important, then the answer I'm looking for becomes a moot point.



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 31.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 22 days ago

    Robin,

    Thank you for writing. I'm a bit short on time as we are getting ready to go away on vacation (everybody informing their favorite burglars?), so I must answer quickly and globally here. 

    You may be surprised how far toward the front of the action the jack will work properly without cheating, beyond the "edge" of the knuckle core, and I have never been concerned with simultaneous escapement. In fact, I do not view the action of the repetition lever contacting the drop screw as escapement. There is but one escapement in a grand piano action, and that is the action of the jack skipping out from under the knuckle - it escapes. Everything else in the action is the motion (condition) of the action components in a  "stopping/limiting" capacity. Examples: drop screw, let-off buttons, front rail punching stack, backrail cloth, damper upstop rail, etc. We don't say that when the vertical rise of the damper underlever has been checked by the upstop rail the underlever has "escaped", do we? It has merely been limited. The same reality exists with the motion of the rise of the repetition lever being checked by the drop screw: the repetition lever has not escaped anywhere.

    David G. Hughes, RPT

    Baltimore Chapter



    ------------------------------
    David Hughes RPT
    Vintage Case Parts
    Glyndon MD
    (443) 522-2201
    ------------------------------



  • 32.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 21 days ago

    I appreciate your wisdom and experience David!  Hope you have a lovely vacation, and hopefully you're not living near the McCallister's neighborhood.

    Great to have the perspective that proper jack function was found on the shallow side of jack-knuckle alignment!  Even more evidence to support regulating this by function rather than by gauge.  This reality may validate my hypothesis, and it may also destroy it.  And it may also depend on the action.  I will use your cheating method, and compare it to the interaction I'm exploring, to see if there's any relationship.  (Don't tell my wife!)

    I expect the phrase simultaneous escapement is a misnomer – it insinuates two escapements, but as you described there clearly is only one.  I know that a lot of techs pursue it, and while the concept/approach makes logical sense to me, it seems that it isn't necessarily as standard practice as other things are. 

    To that end – and I'm asking the whole community here – do we have any arguments for or against establishing simultaneous escapement?  The one case I know in support of it says that having a single moment of "bump" in the keystroke creates a clearer response for the player, perhaps enabling better control of pianissimo.  Both #2's of the plot graphics above show a spreading of that bump that occurs with non-sim.esc.  Perhaps this does create dis-clarity; but this also ramps up the touchweight, rather than peaking all at once - creating a smoother gradient through the keystroke, which might feel like a lighter touch.  

    If anyone knows any other established reasons for pursing or avoiding sim.esc., you have my gratitude in advance of sharing your knowledge!



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 33.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 21 days ago

    Robin,

    Again, I am short on time (thanks for the good wishes!), but my opinion is that the term "double escapement" is a misnomer (simultaneous or not), a catch phrase coined by Mr. Errard, perhaps for marketing advantage. This said, it certainly has carried well for 200 years.

    Further, the term "drop screw" is a misnomer in my opinion - it is a repetition lever stop screw. 

    David G. Hughes, RPT

    Baltimore Chapter



    ------------------------------
    David Hughes RPT
    Vintage Case Parts
    Glyndon MD
    (443) 522-2201
    ------------------------------



  • 34.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 17 days ago

    Greetings, 

       David's approach to setting jack position, (and, could we refer to its position as 'distal' or 'proximal' instead front of action or back?), is much like Cliff Gears proposed in the 1970's.  Cliff taught that you should play the note forcefully and move the jack proximally until you felt the 'loss of power' and then turn it back just a little.  I never followed that due to the lack of precision, which was, at the time, my guiding principle.  I may be spoiled by the consistency of WNG parts, but I set the jack to the knuckle conventionally with the distal edge of the jack no farther than the distal edge of the core and concentrate my time on other things.  Some of the Baldwins with Renner actions of the '80's seemed to actually require the jack be more distal to prevent skipping, and I have regulated actions that were dependable with the jacks well proximal of what I expected.  So, as mentioned, knuckle shape, nap, and placement can require the jack to be in a variety of places.

       As an aside, I saw mention of a rep lever pinned at 8 grams.  This is well above what I have found comfortable, as that much resistance creates a much more noticeable bump at the onset of the escapement event.  Springs do all they can do ( in accelerating the key's return)  with a total 7-8 grams friction shared between the shank and the repetition pinning. With felt bushed parts, you need at least 4 grams in the hammershank to have any stability with mf and above playing, as well as  tonal control at the ppp level.  That leaves about 4-5 grams available for rep pinning.  One can get the same spring strength any way the total friction is divided between the centers, but there will be a different response and feel between a 1 gram hammer flange with a 7 gram repetition lever vs. 4 grams in the hammer and 4 grams in the repetition lever.  WNG bushings don't need but 1 gram of friction to provide more stability than a felt bushed one with 6 grams but doing so requires the repetition lever to carry the rest of the needed resistance. I repin the composite flanges to 3 grams and put the 5 grams in the rep.  This gives sufficient springs without excessive bump to the escapement.  

    regards, 



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



  • 35.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 17 days ago

    Should we also refer to sinister and dexter keys?



    ------------------------------
    Larry Messerly, RPT
    Bringing Harmony to Homes
    www.lacrossepianotuning.com
    ljmesserly@gmail.com
    928-899-7292
    ------------------------------



  • 36.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 16 days ago

    Distal vs. Proximal - What's the Difference?

    Edited by Tayyaba Rehman - By Fiza Rafique - Updated on September 21, 2023
    Distal refers to a location farther from a point of reference, usually the center of the body or point of attachment. Proximal means closer to the point of reference. Both terms are mainly used in anatomy and medicine to describe relative positions.

    Difference Between Distal and Proximal

    So, an additional two terms are required: 1) what reference point on the knuckle core, and 2) what part of the jack (edge closest to key front, edge closest to back check or dampers, or top center.

    just sayin'...



    ------------------------------
    "PTG - Expand your Horizon. Share the Vision"
    "Promoting Quality Service for the World's Pianos"
    "Good, Better, Best. Never let it rest. 'Til the good is better, and the better best."

    George W.R. "Bill Davis", RPT
    1740 Old 41 Hwy NW
    Kennesaw, GA 30152
    CP: 770-778-6881
    bill@pianoplace.net
    www.pianoplace.net
    ------------------------------



  • 37.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 16 days ago

    Ah yes, that point of reference.  I was suggesting proximal as a more easily understood direction than "front" of the jack, assuming the tech/player/front-of-piano be the point of reference.  I have a better idea of it someone says the proximal side of the jack rather than the front of the jack, since I hear people use 'front' to refer to either!     

    regards, 



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



  • 38.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 15 days ago

    I agree with proximal and distal. Proximal as with "close proximity" and distal which is related to distant.  Usually I work with the keys near me and aligning the jack with the distal edge of the knuckle core makes sense. Its the same as near and far... unless you have the action turned around.



    ------------------------------
    Blaine Hebert RPT
    Duarte CA
    (626) 390-0512
    ------------------------------



  • 39.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 16 days ago

    Thanks for your added knowledge, Ed.  What about posterior and anterior?  That seems to work well as they refer to the structure itself, instead of requiring a reference point, and I think we're universally inclined to think of the backcheck area as behind the keys area.

    I see a difference between the Cliff Gears method and the David Hughes method: Feeling for the loss of power is subjective, and the amount of effect from the twist a regulation button is often random due to the non-exactness of that interface.  In David's method, there's likely some subjectivity to it, but I think the controls are at least a little tighter because it depends on an observable point of interaction.

    Your point about the consistency of WNG parts I think rings true – because of that consistency, the visual and/or consistent placement of the jack will most often result is very consistent behavior.  But throughout this whole discussion, I've become convinced that consistent behavior of the jack is far more impactful than consistency in positioning.  (Again, in your case with WNG parts, I expect that you find consistent behavior to accompany consistent placement, therefore what I'm suggesting becomes a moot point, so I'm certainly not arguing this point to you.)

    Thanks for sharing your contrary view on rep lever pinning – very helpful for considering all angles.  While I should experiment more before making a full case, it's my thinking that a higher static friction of the rep lever balanced against the dynamic operation with higher spring tension, could create a different effect than simply changing placement of total equal frictions.  Regarding key return-acceleration, if the rep spring tension is balanced against the hammer shank to produce the same upward behavior, shouldn't that also have the same effect against the key, regardless of rep lever pinning friction?  Perhaps this all works differently for WNG parts, but according to the rep-levers I just repinned, it absolutely established the ability to regulate with simultaneous jack toe and rep lever stop points, whereas it was not possible before. Also, drop behavior is very consistent now, whereas it was not before.  In fact, there's a bit more drop now than I prefer – which I will remedy by adjusting the jack to be on the posterior side of the knuckle core; which is contrary to my initial inquiries in this thread.  All rep levers were at 2g friction previously, and within 6-8g now.



    ------------------------------
    Robin Whitehouse
    Greenbelt, MD
    D.C. Chapter 201
    ------------------------------



  • 40.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Member
    Posted 14 days ago

    It's an interesting rabbit hole to dive down.  When it comes to this aspect I think the more and more I get into the geometry side of this the more I realize that everything matters.  Friction affects the repetition flange which results in different spring tensions which affects the jack's ability to get back under the knuckle.  The Spread changes the amount of friction of the jack getting out from under the knuckle during let-off.  The thickness of the knuckle determines how much the jack needs to move before it escapes.  The height of the knuckle affects how close your Jack is to your half stroke line for the repetition and hammer shank.  (Though a true half-stroke line is currently impossible without completely redesigning the Shank and repetition at this lever).  And of course that is on top of the normal regulation concerns.  What you get from these results is deeply died to the geometry and regulation of the action.  This is tied to spread, hammer hanging distance, string height, capstan placement.  While many Actions are designed well, variance in components and manufacturing tolerance usually means that most are less than ideal. And then when you factor in wear to the equations in a way you could argue that most pianos are out of design spec. So for those of us in the field, that begs the question of when you have an action that is out of spec and you cannot get everything to work out properly, where do you compromise?

    With this level of graphing utilizing the KMD we are also only now really seeing a point by point distribution with our measurement tools.  While weights were perfectly fine getting a baseline down weight, upweight and balance weight, this greater detail brings up more information on actual numbers we can put to something over the traditional "feel" method. Its great we have these profiles now to analyze.  It adds one more piece of information we can use, but that begs the question.  What is it that we are specifically looking for in terms of jack profiles.  While I have my opinion, what does the wider market desire?  There are many ways to come at the problem, but what feels the best to the average person would be the question.  What compromises are needed to best fit the pianists needs tends to be how I go about it.



    ------------------------------
    Zackery Hardy
    Elk Grove CA
    (916) 531-5150
    ------------------------------



  • 41.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 14 days ago

    Zackery mentioned the "magic line" in his comment when talking about the half-stroke of the key. There is another "magic line" in an action that probably relates to this conversation. Zackery mentioned it too when he referred to the action spread. This is the line between the wippen center and the jack center. I believe he was highlighting that line as a measurement. But in the context of discussing the jack-to-knuckle alignment, it's good to understand that the point of least friction between the jack and knuckle occurs when escapement happens on or above that line. However, keep in mind that actions are designed so that escapement occurs below that line. We want some friction here for a couple of reasons. But, if escapement happens too far below that line, then that's when you may feel a "digging" as the jack moves away from the knuckle. 

    Where escapement occurs depends on several factors; knuckle size and location, to name two. But one should, among other things, consider whether the shank and wippen centers have the proper relationship to the string plane. The shank center location is rather easy to determine. After that is set, and you know the action spread dimension, you can determine the wippen location. You could consider rotating the action frame about the shank center to control where the escapement occurs. I remember Chris Robinson years ago talking about "action center differential," at least I think that was the phrase he used. He was referring to the distance from the shank and wippen centers to the strings. This is just another way to frame how the action sits on the keyframe. 

    With these ideas in your mind, you can see how logical it would be to have the jack set to a right angle to the hammershank when the hammershank is at rest. Of course, we should all acknowledge the need for compromise when it comes to solid action regulation. 



    ------------------------------
    Rick Butler RPT
    The Butler School of Piano Technology
    Bowie MD
    240 396 7480
    RickRickRickRickRick
    ------------------------------



  • 42.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Posted 14 days ago

    WNG parts use pseudosuede (aka ecsaine) in place of buckskin.

    Pseudosuede is manufactured to very exact standards, very even thickness and very even friction.

    It is also virtually indestructable in piano actions. An engineer reported no discernable change after one million impacts.

    These may be small differences compared to buckskin, but as has been said, small differences compound in the piano action.

    [By the way, this is not the imitation suede (corfam) that failed miserably in Baldwin verticals.]



    ------------------------------
    Ed Sutton
    ed440@me.com
    (980) 254-7413
    ------------------------------



  • 43.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 14 days ago
    The one problem I have encountered with the WNG hammer shanks is noise. The conposite material doesn't seem to dampen noise in the action parts like wood does.  

       Has anyone used the newer WNG knuckles with the solid core, and if so, are they quieter on release?  I haven't been able to put a WNG in a recording venue because of the rattle that the microphones pick up as the keys are released. 
    Regards, 






  • 44.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 14 days ago

    I have used them on the last two rebuilds. I think they're great (so far), and noise has not been an issue (again so far) a year or more in. 

    Additionally, it seems that all the "standard" regulation specs we are used to have a built in "safety factor" to accommodate various playing styles, various climates and seasonal change, etc. Considering the fact that the vast majority of pianos are not intended or used for concert performance, it would seem that as long as there is not some "baked in" defective setup from the factory, the standard specs should work pretty well under normal conditions. What were talking about here is along the lines of "custom optimization", which certainly can improve things, but as we know...there are always ramifications. So it goes without saying that if we're going to depart from these specs, we need to be prepared for dealing with possible collateral issues. 

    Peter Grey Piano Doctor 



    ------------------------------
    Peter Grey
    Stratham NH
    (603) 686-2395
    pianodoctor57@gmail.com
    ------------------------------



  • 45.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 13 days ago
    Peter writes: 
    'Additionally, it seems that all the "standard" regulation specs we are used to have a built in "safety factor" to accommodate various playing styles, various climates and seasonal change, etc. Considering the fact that the vast majority of pianos are not intended or used for concert performance, it would seem that as long as there is not some "baked in" defective setup from the factory, the standard specs should work pretty well under normal conditions'

      I agree.  One point worth considering is value.  I cannot justify the same amount of time setting up the regulation of a wooden action if I am going for all out performance, as whatever state of pinning I regulate with is going to immediately begin changing.  It will remain usable, but that one variable is going to be the weak link in the chain we call 'regulation'.  Since spring strength is heavily determined by friction, and its strength determines other sensitive initial settings, (like jack position and mortise height), having it subject to variety requires I leave a wider margin for error than with the composite parts. They allow a narrower 'window' to be worth pursuing, as the results will be more durable, long-lasting, and ultimately more valuable.  

     regards,  





  • 46.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 10 days ago

    WNG parts use pseudosuede (aka ecsaine) in place of buckskin.

    Pseudosuede is manufactured to very exact standards, very even thickness and very even friction.

    It is also virtually indestructable in piano actions. An engineer reported no discernable change after one million impacts.

    These may be small differences compared to buckskin, but as has been said, small differences compound in the piano action.

    [By the way, this is not the imitation suede (corfam) that failed miserably in Baldwin verticals.]



    ------------------------------
    Ed Sutton
    ed440@me.com
    (980) 254-7413
    ------------------------------

    I generally replace worn rollers with ecsaine rollers, Ed. The same goes for backchecks. Just as you say, I find the material to be very reliable and uniform.



    ------------------------------
    Patrick Wingren
    Jakobstad, Finland
    patrick@wingrenpianistik.fi
    0035844-5288048
    ------------------------------



  • 47.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 12 days ago

    Thanks David, I'll definitely try your method!

    @All: what about rep lever height? There is the "finger tip test" in the rep lever window and there's rocking the jack and adjust the rep lever height until you feel just a bit of tiny resistance from the knuckle (which Jim Busby advocates in his excellent e-book which has saved me a lot of time when regulating grands.)

    Anybody using any other methods? 

    I'll rather be safe than sorry when setting repetition lever height. Because we have so drastic seasonal changes here in Finland, I error on the safe side and places it a bit (too) high – except for in concrete concert situations and for concert grands that I serve continiously and frequently. 

    Best, Patrick



    ------------------------------
    Patrick Wingren, RPTRPT
    Jakobstad, Finland
    0035844-5288048
    ------------------------------



  • 48.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 12 days ago

    Patrick Wingren,

    To set repetition lever height dynamically, place the action before you on the workbench reversed (you will be looking at the backchecks).  Hold the keystick down to the backrail cloth by reaching over the action stack and pressing lightly on the top of the keystick between the key button and the capstan. While restraining the key this way, lift the hammer and bounce it on the repetition lever. Adjust the lever height until there is virtually no bounce of the lever adjustment screw on the whippen body - the adjustment screw will not rise. This makes the lever "too low". Now cycle the jack with the hammer at rest on the top of the whippen. The jack must comfortably get back under the knuckle when released. If the jack will not return, slowly readjust the screw (open the gap) until the lever adjusting screw just winks off the whippen body. You want as little bounce (movement) as possible, yet the jack must still get back under.

    Trying to adjust repetition lever height by feeling its height relative to the top of the jack, or by observing this dimension (somehow), is inexact at best.

    David G. Hughes, RPT

    Baltimore Chapter 



    ------------------------------
    David Hughes RPT
    Vintage Case Parts
    Glyndon MD
    (443) 522-2201
    ------------------------------



  • 49.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 11 days ago

    One observation I made recently was with working with a collection of high-end and well regulated grands at a dealer.  When I checked the jacks I found many jacks on several different pianos that were not clearing under the knuckles.  Checking jack clearance and repetition lever height has become a regular task for me and I frequently find many that don't clear.



    ------------------------------
    Blaine Hebert RPT
    Duarte CA
    (626) 390-0512
    ------------------------------



  • 50.  RE: Jack-to-knuckle alignment question

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 11 days ago

    Thanks again David! The latter part is what I aim for myself when making the adjustments, but I hadn't thought of finding the "too-low position" in the practical way you suggest. Neither have I observed the screw itself. I will try this out, too. Much appreciated.

    And yeah, just as Blaine writes here, I frequently find grands where the jacks are not clearing.



    ------------------------------
    Patrick Wingren, RPTRPT
    Jakobstad, Finland
    0035844-5288048
    ------------------------------