Pianotech

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

What driving fluid do you use?

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

I too would like to know about driving fluid (not the kind of course that will get you arrested...) 😉 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

What driving fluid do you use?

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

I too would like to know about driving fluid (not the kind of course that will get you arrested...) 😉 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

What driving fluid do you use?

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Blaine,

Might that have been spar varnish? I know someone who routinely used that on Falconwood blocks back in the day.

Alan 

I too would like to know about driving fluid (not the kind of course that will get you arrested...) 😉 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

What driving fluid do you use?

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

I suspect that Pacific was repackaging a spar varnish as a pin block treatment.  It seems to work, though I have no real or valid data other than my one use.

Blaine,

Might that have been spar varnish? I know someone who routinely used that on Falconwood blocks back in the day.

Alan 

I too would like to know about driving fluid (not the kind of course that will get you arrested...) 😉 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

What driving fluid do you use?

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

What is supposed to be the point behind pin driving fluid? And why does no one scream about "contamination" of the pinblock? Seems odd to me.

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Hi there Keith and fellow technicians,

It is the first time I have heard of "driving Fluid"

We use chalk or violin rosin liberally smeared around the tuning pin before driving the pin in.

It this a liquid? and do you dribble some on the pin before driving it in?

Thanks

Raymond

------------------------------
Raymond Cugnolio
owner
Pretoria
27-82-342-4668

Original Message:
Sent: 01-15-2024 01:32
From: Keith Akins
Subject: Tuning pin size consensus?

Original Message:
Sent: 1/14/2024 12:32:00 AM
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RE: Tuning pin size consensus?

Original Message:
Sent: 1/13/2024 11:53:00 PM
From: Blaine Hebert
Subject: Tuning pin size consensus?

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

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

I think CA would make a great pin driving fluid. Should make you work faster too!

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Edit: of course this is in the interest of jocularity 😉 

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

Original Message:
Sent: 01-16-2024 04:32
From: Raymond Cugnolio
Subject: Tuning pin size consensus?

Hi there Keith and fellow technicians,

It is the first time I have heard of "driving Fluid"

We use chalk or violin rosin liberally smeared around the tuning pin before driving the pin in.

It this a liquid? and do you dribble some on the pin before driving it in?

Thanks

Raymond

------------------------------
Raymond Cugnolio
owner
Pretoria
27-82-342-4668

Original Message:
Sent: 01-15-2024 01:32
From: Keith Akins
Subject: Tuning pin size consensus?

Original Message:
Sent: 1/14/2024 12:32:00 AM
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RE: Tuning pin size consensus?

Original Message:
Sent: 1/13/2024 11:53:00 PM
From: Blaine Hebert
Subject: Tuning pin size consensus?

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

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

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

I would be wary of using any sanding sealer as driving fluid since those tend to includes stearates. Stearates are designed to act as a lubricant

to make sanding easier and less prone to gumming up.  I would not want a lubricant in my new block!

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

I would be wary of using any sanding sealer as driving fluid since those tend to includes stearates. Stearates are designed to act as a lubricant

to make sanding easier and less prone to gumming up.  I would not want a lubricant in my new block!

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Here is a suggestion:  Every tech following this who has a piece of old or new pin block material and a few tuning pins should do a test themselves.  Drill a series of uniform holes and hammer in an appropriate batch of similar pins, each treated in some material or another.  Please be sure to make replicates (more than one of each treatment).  Test everything you can; rosin (remember that rosin is readily soluable in alcohol), sanding sealer, shellac, spar varnish, chalk, talk, CA, bacon grease, etc..  Dont forget to leave a few pins untreated.  You might even try different sized holes or pins.  Lable everything!  Sign and date it. Test it. Toss it into a dry corner of your shop and test it in a week (take notes). Test it in a month.  Test it in a year.  Have your grandchildren test it in a few decades.

Let us know how it worked!

I would be wary of using any sanding sealer as driving fluid since those tend to includes stearates. Stearates are designed to act as a lubricant

to make sanding easier and less prone to gumming up.  I would not want a lubricant in my new block!

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Keith,

Thanks for a thorough reply.  This is the sort of real data the needs to be repeated, or in this case revived as it is based on actual experience from enough examples to be valid and not just anecdotal.

My one case/datum does not make a statistically relevant experiment.

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Keith,

Thanks for a thorough reply.  This is the sort of real data the needs to be repeated, or in this case revived as it is based on actual experience from enough examples to be valid and not just anecdotal.

My one case/datum does not make a statistically relevant experiment.

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Thank you, Keith,

This is quite an extensive reply and enlightening. I still wonder where the use of chalk to coat the pin before driving it in came from?

I was told in no uncertain terms by my mentors that this was the best way.

Thanks

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Thank you, Keith,

This is quite an extensive reply and enlightening. I still wonder where the use of chalk to coat the pin before driving it in came from?

I was told in no uncertain terms by my mentors that this was the best way.

Thanks

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Like many things in piano technology there is no "science" behind it. The "evidence" is anecdotal. Somebody told me, I've always done it, that's how I was taught. Not to mention the placebo effect is real.  What's the science behind needling hammers from the shoulders rather than the side, or hardening the hammer using lacquer versus keytop versus shellac versus little pellets of plastic?  Judging by people's firm commitment to one or t'other you'd think there was. But often there isn't.  It's whatever works and sometimes it's whatever you believe works (lots of that going around these days).

I'm reminded of having attended many of Rick Baldassin's classes on various subjects and him often responding to the question of "why does that work?" with, "I don't know but I'm glad it does".  Maybe the better answer, in this case, is "it works for me".  

There are some things where the science is applicable, and many things where it isn't.  

My experience with pdf is I've done it with and without.  The pin drives easier with some, if not most, substances. Does it reduce jumpy pins or make for smoother turning pins?  Not necessarily, in my experience.   I tried it for awhile but gave up on it as an unnecessary step that yielded no consistent benefit  

BTW, does anyone still actually use delignit for pinblocks anymore?  Nasty stuff,  Can be good for bridge caps though in the right situation  

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Like many things in piano technology there is no "science" behind it. The "evidence" is anecdotal. Somebody told me, I've always done it, that's how I was taught. Not to mention the placebo effect is real.  What's the science behind needling hammers from the shoulders rather than the side, or hardening the hammer using lacquer versus keytop versus shellac versus little pellets of plastic?  Judging by people's firm commitment to one or t'other you'd think there was. But often there isn't.  It's whatever works and sometimes it's whatever you believe works (lots of that going around these days).

I'm reminded of having attended many of Rick Baldassin's classes on various subjects and him often responding to the question of "why does that work?" with, "I don't know but I'm glad it does".  Maybe the better answer, in this case, is "it works for me".  

There are some things where the science is applicable, and many things where it isn't.  

My experience with pdf is I've done it with and without.  The pin drives easier with some, if not most, substances. Does it reduce jumpy pins or make for smoother turning pins?  Not necessarily, in my experience.   I tried it for awhile but gave up on it as an unnecessary step that yielded no consistent benefit  

BTW, does anyone still actually use delignit for pinblocks anymore?  Nasty stuff,  Can be good for bridge caps though in the right situation  

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

I tend to agree with you John. My comments were directed at the "science" question.  But the fact that there are at least a dozen different and disparate products being used suggests there's not much science, but simply preference based on a variety of opinions and habits. 

I think the original idea behind PDF was that it functioned as a lubricant for driving the pins so that the wood fibers in the block would experience less trauma and damage from the process.  It also might have saved some wear and tear on the body of the person driving the pins.  It might be noted that some factories turn the pins in so that might also reduce the amount of heat produced by reducing friction and avoid the potential scorching of the block. The residual effects of the product seems less important because the inside of the block that is in contact with the pin is essentially end grain and any residual coating left from whatever product would probably be negligible in effect for, say, tuning.

That would all be consistent with my experience.  Pins went in easier but there was no benefit in terms of tuning response. There, the proper drilling and choice of bit and pin size depending on the block material is much more important. PDF will not allow you to get away with improper attention to those critical details.

The problem with the "science" is that it is almost impossible to hold all the variables involved in tuning response constant while testing the various substances. Individual tuning techniques would  introduce yet another variable. Additionally, true science involves not only the control of the other variables but a double blind approach and a way of objectively measuring the "feel" of the tuning pins with and without and PDF.  Good luck with that. 

Bottom line is if you believe it and it works for you, use it. It's not like you're electing a president. 

Like many things in piano technology there is no "science" behind it. The "evidence" is anecdotal. Somebody told me, I've always done it, that's how I was taught. Not to mention the placebo effect is real.  What's the science behind needling hammers from the shoulders rather than the side, or hardening the hammer using lacquer versus keytop versus shellac versus little pellets of plastic?  Judging by people's firm commitment to one or t'other you'd think there was. But often there isn't.  It's whatever works and sometimes it's whatever you believe works (lots of that going around these days).

I'm reminded of having attended many of Rick Baldassin's classes on various subjects and him often responding to the question of "why does that work?" with, "I don't know but I'm glad it does".  Maybe the better answer, in this case, is "it works for me".  

There are some things where the science is applicable, and many things where it isn't.  

My experience with pdf is I've done it with and without.  The pin drives easier with some, if not most, substances. Does it reduce jumpy pins or make for smoother turning pins?  Not necessarily, in my experience.   I tried it for awhile but gave up on it as an unnecessary step that yielded no consistent benefit  

BTW, does anyone still actually use delignit for pinblocks anymore?  Nasty stuff,  Can be good for bridge caps though in the right situation  

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

"The problem with the "science" is that it is almost impossible to hold all the variables involved in tuning response constant while testing the various substances. Individual tuning techniques would  introduce yet another variable. Additionally, true science involves not only the control of the other variables but a double blind approach and a way of objectively measuring the "feel" of the tuning pins with and without and PDF.  Good luck with that."

Dave,

This is one of my main points, much of what we do is based on our personal opinions and humans are usually very convinced that their opinion or observation is correct.  Unless someone is rebuilding dozens of instruments and honestly comparing objective information, such as pin torque or measured tone then wishes and desires creep into our perception.

Science depends on fair comparisons and such a comparison requires careful control of variables, something that is difficult to do with a wide variety of instrument of different makes (though comparing pin torque from piano to piano with similar block material is "fairly fair").  Double blind tests are rare heareabouts.

I tend to agree with you John. My comments were directed at the "science" question.  But the fact that there are at least a dozen different and disparate products being used suggests there's not much science, but simply preference based on a variety of opinions and habits. 

I think the original idea behind PDF was that it functioned as a lubricant for driving the pins so that the wood fibers in the block would experience less trauma and damage from the process.  It also might have saved some wear and tear on the body of the person driving the pins.  It might be noted that some factories turn the pins in so that might also reduce the amount of heat produced by reducing friction and avoid the potential scorching of the block. The residual effects of the product seems less important because the inside of the block that is in contact with the pin is essentially end grain and any residual coating left from whatever product would probably be negligible in effect for, say, tuning.

That would all be consistent with my experience.  Pins went in easier but there was no benefit in terms of tuning response. There, the proper drilling and choice of bit and pin size depending on the block material is much more important. PDF will not allow you to get away with improper attention to those critical details.

The problem with the "science" is that it is almost impossible to hold all the variables involved in tuning response constant while testing the various substances. Individual tuning techniques would  introduce yet another variable. Additionally, true science involves not only the control of the other variables but a double blind approach and a way of objectively measuring the "feel" of the tuning pins with and without and PDF.  Good luck with that. 

Bottom line is if you believe it and it works for you, use it. It's not like you're electing a president. 

Like many things in piano technology there is no "science" behind it. The "evidence" is anecdotal. Somebody told me, I've always done it, that's how I was taught. Not to mention the placebo effect is real.  What's the science behind needling hammers from the shoulders rather than the side, or hardening the hammer using lacquer versus keytop versus shellac versus little pellets of plastic?  Judging by people's firm commitment to one or t'other you'd think there was. But often there isn't.  It's whatever works and sometimes it's whatever you believe works (lots of that going around these days).

I'm reminded of having attended many of Rick Baldassin's classes on various subjects and him often responding to the question of "why does that work?" with, "I don't know but I'm glad it does".  Maybe the better answer, in this case, is "it works for me".  

There are some things where the science is applicable, and many things where it isn't.  

My experience with pdf is I've done it with and without.  The pin drives easier with some, if not most, substances. Does it reduce jumpy pins or make for smoother turning pins?  Not necessarily, in my experience.   I tried it for awhile but gave up on it as an unnecessary step that yielded no consistent benefit  

BTW, does anyone still actually use delignit for pinblocks anymore?  Nasty stuff,  Can be good for bridge caps though in the right situation  

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

"Scientific" testing of pin driving fluids are not very likely, but if common practice tends toward a "local maximum practice" (or not), we might say that within our little world, evolution has spoken. 

No one who tries to make tuning pins of brass or cast iron, for example, will argue that brass or cast iron makes better tuning pins than steel. Practical experience speaks pretty clearly on that.

Someone who claims to have the only truly working tuning hammer will have to explain why so many other people use different tuning hammers. There is no convergence to a one and only best tuning hammer. (Though there are certain characteristics virtually all good tuning hammers have in common.)

My impression is that the majority of tuning pins are driven without pin driving fluid, perhaps just enough to keep the idea alive, and that there is no negative effect that prevents the practice, so it hangs on in a small minority of tuning pin drivers, probably solo technicians. It doesn't make a significant enough difference to become common practice.

"The problem with the "science" is that it is almost impossible to hold all the variables involved in tuning response constant while testing the various substances. Individual tuning techniques would  introduce yet another variable. Additionally, true science involves not only the control of the other variables but a double blind approach and a way of objectively measuring the "feel" of the tuning pins with and without and PDF.  Good luck with that."

Dave,

This is one of my main points, much of what we do is based on our personal opinions and humans are usually very convinced that their opinion or observation is correct.  Unless someone is rebuilding dozens of instruments and honestly comparing objective information, such as pin torque or measured tone then wishes and desires creep into our perception.

Science depends on fair comparisons and such a comparison requires careful control of variables, something that is difficult to do with a wide variety of instrument of different makes (though comparing pin torque from piano to piano with similar block material is "fairly fair").  Double blind tests are rare heareabouts.

I tend to agree with you John. My comments were directed at the "science" question.  But the fact that there are at least a dozen different and disparate products being used suggests there's not much science, but simply preference based on a variety of opinions and habits. 

I think the original idea behind PDF was that it functioned as a lubricant for driving the pins so that the wood fibers in the block would experience less trauma and damage from the process.  It also might have saved some wear and tear on the body of the person driving the pins.  It might be noted that some factories turn the pins in so that might also reduce the amount of heat produced by reducing friction and avoid the potential scorching of the block. The residual effects of the product seems less important because the inside of the block that is in contact with the pin is essentially end grain and any residual coating left from whatever product would probably be negligible in effect for, say, tuning.

That would all be consistent with my experience.  Pins went in easier but there was no benefit in terms of tuning response. There, the proper drilling and choice of bit and pin size depending on the block material is much more important. PDF will not allow you to get away with improper attention to those critical details.

The problem with the "science" is that it is almost impossible to hold all the variables involved in tuning response constant while testing the various substances. Individual tuning techniques would  introduce yet another variable. Additionally, true science involves not only the control of the other variables but a double blind approach and a way of objectively measuring the "feel" of the tuning pins with and without and PDF.  Good luck with that. 

Bottom line is if you believe it and it works for you, use it. It's not like you're electing a president. 

Like many things in piano technology there is no "science" behind it. The "evidence" is anecdotal. Somebody told me, I've always done it, that's how I was taught. Not to mention the placebo effect is real.  What's the science behind needling hammers from the shoulders rather than the side, or hardening the hammer using lacquer versus keytop versus shellac versus little pellets of plastic?  Judging by people's firm commitment to one or t'other you'd think there was. But often there isn't.  It's whatever works and sometimes it's whatever you believe works (lots of that going around these days).

I'm reminded of having attended many of Rick Baldassin's classes on various subjects and him often responding to the question of "why does that work?" with, "I don't know but I'm glad it does".  Maybe the better answer, in this case, is "it works for me".  

There are some things where the science is applicable, and many things where it isn't.  

My experience with pdf is I've done it with and without.  The pin drives easier with some, if not most, substances. Does it reduce jumpy pins or make for smoother turning pins?  Not necessarily, in my experience.   I tried it for awhile but gave up on it as an unnecessary step that yielded no consistent benefit  

BTW, does anyone still actually use delignit for pinblocks anymore?  Nasty stuff,  Can be good for bridge caps though in the right situation  

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Except you can make a scientific argument for tuning pins made of steel rather than brass or cast iron in terms if shear strength, stiffness etc.  But pin driving fluids, at least as far as tuning performance goes, are being touted based on something immeasurable, which is feel.  

Not everything lends itself to true scientific testing, but some things do.  Think about voicing, for example.  We can measure timbre as the relative strength of the partial mix, even compare the amplitude of attack phase versus the sustain phase but there are still so many other variables that determine what is best outcome it's nearly impossible to establish a set of objective and measurable goals.  

With PDF, it's obviously not a problem to use it (as a brass tuning pin would be, at least in a piano) so it becomes a simple matter of preference even if that preference is a psychological one.  

"Scientific" testing of pin driving fluids are not very likely, but if common practice tends toward a "local maximum practice" (or not), we might say that within our little world, evolution has spoken. 

No one who tries to make tuning pins of brass or cast iron, for example, will argue that brass or cast iron makes better tuning pins than steel. Practical experience speaks pretty clearly on that.

Someone who claims to have the only truly working tuning hammer will have to explain why so many other people use different tuning hammers. There is no convergence to a one and only best tuning hammer. (Though there are certain characteristics virtually all good tuning hammers have in common.)

My impression is that the majority of tuning pins are driven without pin driving fluid, perhaps just enough to keep the idea alive, and that there is no negative effect that prevents the practice, so it hangs on in a small minority of tuning pin drivers, probably solo technicians. It doesn't make a significant enough difference to become common practice.

"The problem with the "science" is that it is almost impossible to hold all the variables involved in tuning response constant while testing the various substances. Individual tuning techniques would  introduce yet another variable. Additionally, true science involves not only the control of the other variables but a double blind approach and a way of objectively measuring the "feel" of the tuning pins with and without and PDF.  Good luck with that."

Dave,

This is one of my main points, much of what we do is based on our personal opinions and humans are usually very convinced that their opinion or observation is correct.  Unless someone is rebuilding dozens of instruments and honestly comparing objective information, such as pin torque or measured tone then wishes and desires creep into our perception.

Science depends on fair comparisons and such a comparison requires careful control of variables, something that is difficult to do with a wide variety of instrument of different makes (though comparing pin torque from piano to piano with similar block material is "fairly fair").  Double blind tests are rare heareabouts.

I tend to agree with you John. My comments were directed at the "science" question.  But the fact that there are at least a dozen different and disparate products being used suggests there's not much science, but simply preference based on a variety of opinions and habits. 

I think the original idea behind PDF was that it functioned as a lubricant for driving the pins so that the wood fibers in the block would experience less trauma and damage from the process.  It also might have saved some wear and tear on the body of the person driving the pins.  It might be noted that some factories turn the pins in so that might also reduce the amount of heat produced by reducing friction and avoid the potential scorching of the block. The residual effects of the product seems less important because the inside of the block that is in contact with the pin is essentially end grain and any residual coating left from whatever product would probably be negligible in effect for, say, tuning.

That would all be consistent with my experience.  Pins went in easier but there was no benefit in terms of tuning response. There, the proper drilling and choice of bit and pin size depending on the block material is much more important. PDF will not allow you to get away with improper attention to those critical details.

The problem with the "science" is that it is almost impossible to hold all the variables involved in tuning response constant while testing the various substances. Individual tuning techniques would  introduce yet another variable. Additionally, true science involves not only the control of the other variables but a double blind approach and a way of objectively measuring the "feel" of the tuning pins with and without and PDF.  Good luck with that. 

Bottom line is if you believe it and it works for you, use it. It's not like you're electing a president. 

Like many things in piano technology there is no "science" behind it. The "evidence" is anecdotal. Somebody told me, I've always done it, that's how I was taught. Not to mention the placebo effect is real.  What's the science behind needling hammers from the shoulders rather than the side, or hardening the hammer using lacquer versus keytop versus shellac versus little pellets of plastic?  Judging by people's firm commitment to one or t'other you'd think there was. But often there isn't.  It's whatever works and sometimes it's whatever you believe works (lots of that going around these days).

I'm reminded of having attended many of Rick Baldassin's classes on various subjects and him often responding to the question of "why does that work?" with, "I don't know but I'm glad it does".  Maybe the better answer, in this case, is "it works for me".  

There are some things where the science is applicable, and many things where it isn't.  

My experience with pdf is I've done it with and without.  The pin drives easier with some, if not most, substances. Does it reduce jumpy pins or make for smoother turning pins?  Not necessarily, in my experience.   I tried it for awhile but gave up on it as an unnecessary step that yielded no consistent benefit  

BTW, does anyone still actually use delignit for pinblocks anymore?  Nasty stuff,  Can be good for bridge caps though in the right situation  

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Except you can make a scientific argument for tuning pins made of steel rather than brass or cast iron in terms if shear strength, stiffness etc.  But pin driving fluids, at least as far as tuning performance goes, are being touted based on something immeasurable, which is feel.  

Not everything lends itself to true scientific testing, but some things do.  Think about voicing, for example.  We can measure timbre as the relative strength of the partial mix, even compare the amplitude of attack phase versus the sustain phase but there are still so many other variables that determine what is best outcome it's nearly impossible to establish a set of objective and measurable goals.  

With PDF, it's obviously not a problem to use it (as a brass tuning pin would be, at least in a piano) so it becomes a simple matter of preference even if that preference is a psychological one.  

"Scientific" testing of pin driving fluids are not very likely, but if common practice tends toward a "local maximum practice" (or not), we might say that within our little world, evolution has spoken. 

No one who tries to make tuning pins of brass or cast iron, for example, will argue that brass or cast iron makes better tuning pins than steel. Practical experience speaks pretty clearly on that.

Someone who claims to have the only truly working tuning hammer will have to explain why so many other people use different tuning hammers. There is no convergence to a one and only best tuning hammer. (Though there are certain characteristics virtually all good tuning hammers have in common.)

My impression is that the majority of tuning pins are driven without pin driving fluid, perhaps just enough to keep the idea alive, and that there is no negative effect that prevents the practice, so it hangs on in a small minority of tuning pin drivers, probably solo technicians. It doesn't make a significant enough difference to become common practice.

"The problem with the "science" is that it is almost impossible to hold all the variables involved in tuning response constant while testing the various substances. Individual tuning techniques would  introduce yet another variable. Additionally, true science involves not only the control of the other variables but a double blind approach and a way of objectively measuring the "feel" of the tuning pins with and without and PDF.  Good luck with that."

Dave,

This is one of my main points, much of what we do is based on our personal opinions and humans are usually very convinced that their opinion or observation is correct.  Unless someone is rebuilding dozens of instruments and honestly comparing objective information, such as pin torque or measured tone then wishes and desires creep into our perception.

Science depends on fair comparisons and such a comparison requires careful control of variables, something that is difficult to do with a wide variety of instrument of different makes (though comparing pin torque from piano to piano with similar block material is "fairly fair").  Double blind tests are rare heareabouts.

I tend to agree with you John. My comments were directed at the "science" question.  But the fact that there are at least a dozen different and disparate products being used suggests there's not much science, but simply preference based on a variety of opinions and habits. 

I think the original idea behind PDF was that it functioned as a lubricant for driving the pins so that the wood fibers in the block would experience less trauma and damage from the process.  It also might have saved some wear and tear on the body of the person driving the pins.  It might be noted that some factories turn the pins in so that might also reduce the amount of heat produced by reducing friction and avoid the potential scorching of the block. The residual effects of the product seems less important because the inside of the block that is in contact with the pin is essentially end grain and any residual coating left from whatever product would probably be negligible in effect for, say, tuning.

That would all be consistent with my experience.  Pins went in easier but there was no benefit in terms of tuning response. There, the proper drilling and choice of bit and pin size depending on the block material is much more important. PDF will not allow you to get away with improper attention to those critical details.

The problem with the "science" is that it is almost impossible to hold all the variables involved in tuning response constant while testing the various substances. Individual tuning techniques would  introduce yet another variable. Additionally, true science involves not only the control of the other variables but a double blind approach and a way of objectively measuring the "feel" of the tuning pins with and without and PDF.  Good luck with that. 

Bottom line is if you believe it and it works for you, use it. It's not like you're electing a president. 

Like many things in piano technology there is no "science" behind it. The "evidence" is anecdotal. Somebody told me, I've always done it, that's how I was taught. Not to mention the placebo effect is real.  What's the science behind needling hammers from the shoulders rather than the side, or hardening the hammer using lacquer versus keytop versus shellac versus little pellets of plastic?  Judging by people's firm commitment to one or t'other you'd think there was. But often there isn't.  It's whatever works and sometimes it's whatever you believe works (lots of that going around these days).

I'm reminded of having attended many of Rick Baldassin's classes on various subjects and him often responding to the question of "why does that work?" with, "I don't know but I'm glad it does".  Maybe the better answer, in this case, is "it works for me".  

There are some things where the science is applicable, and many things where it isn't.  

My experience with pdf is I've done it with and without.  The pin drives easier with some, if not most, substances. Does it reduce jumpy pins or make for smoother turning pins?  Not necessarily, in my experience.   I tried it for awhile but gave up on it as an unnecessary step that yielded no consistent benefit  

BTW, does anyone still actually use delignit for pinblocks anymore?  Nasty stuff,  Can be good for bridge caps though in the right situation  

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....

Except you can make a scientific argument for tuning pins made of steel rather than brass or cast iron in terms if shear strength, stiffness etc.  But pin driving fluids, at least as far as tuning performance goes, are being touted based on something immeasurable, which is feel.  

Not everything lends itself to true scientific testing, but some things do.  Think about voicing, for example.  We can measure timbre as the relative strength of the partial mix, even compare the amplitude of attack phase versus the sustain phase but there are still so many other variables that determine what is best outcome it's nearly impossible to establish a set of objective and measurable goals.  

With PDF, it's obviously not a problem to use it (as a brass tuning pin would be, at least in a piano) so it becomes a simple matter of preference even if that preference is a psychological one.  

"Scientific" testing of pin driving fluids are not very likely, but if common practice tends toward a "local maximum practice" (or not), we might say that within our little world, evolution has spoken. 

No one who tries to make tuning pins of brass or cast iron, for example, will argue that brass or cast iron makes better tuning pins than steel. Practical experience speaks pretty clearly on that.

Someone who claims to have the only truly working tuning hammer will have to explain why so many other people use different tuning hammers. There is no convergence to a one and only best tuning hammer. (Though there are certain characteristics virtually all good tuning hammers have in common.)

My impression is that the majority of tuning pins are driven without pin driving fluid, perhaps just enough to keep the idea alive, and that there is no negative effect that prevents the practice, so it hangs on in a small minority of tuning pin drivers, probably solo technicians. It doesn't make a significant enough difference to become common practice.

"The problem with the "science" is that it is almost impossible to hold all the variables involved in tuning response constant while testing the various substances. Individual tuning techniques would  introduce yet another variable. Additionally, true science involves not only the control of the other variables but a double blind approach and a way of objectively measuring the "feel" of the tuning pins with and without and PDF.  Good luck with that."

Dave,

This is one of my main points, much of what we do is based on our personal opinions and humans are usually very convinced that their opinion or observation is correct.  Unless someone is rebuilding dozens of instruments and honestly comparing objective information, such as pin torque or measured tone then wishes and desires creep into our perception.

Science depends on fair comparisons and such a comparison requires careful control of variables, something that is difficult to do with a wide variety of instrument of different makes (though comparing pin torque from piano to piano with similar block material is "fairly fair").  Double blind tests are rare heareabouts.

I tend to agree with you John. My comments were directed at the "science" question.  But the fact that there are at least a dozen different and disparate products being used suggests there's not much science, but simply preference based on a variety of opinions and habits. 

I think the original idea behind PDF was that it functioned as a lubricant for driving the pins so that the wood fibers in the block would experience less trauma and damage from the process.  It also might have saved some wear and tear on the body of the person driving the pins.  It might be noted that some factories turn the pins in so that might also reduce the amount of heat produced by reducing friction and avoid the potential scorching of the block. The residual effects of the product seems less important because the inside of the block that is in contact with the pin is essentially end grain and any residual coating left from whatever product would probably be negligible in effect for, say, tuning.

That would all be consistent with my experience.  Pins went in easier but there was no benefit in terms of tuning response. There, the proper drilling and choice of bit and pin size depending on the block material is much more important. PDF will not allow you to get away with improper attention to those critical details.

The problem with the "science" is that it is almost impossible to hold all the variables involved in tuning response constant while testing the various substances. Individual tuning techniques would  introduce yet another variable. Additionally, true science involves not only the control of the other variables but a double blind approach and a way of objectively measuring the "feel" of the tuning pins with and without and PDF.  Good luck with that. 

Bottom line is if you believe it and it works for you, use it. It's not like you're electing a president. 

Like many things in piano technology there is no "science" behind it. The "evidence" is anecdotal. Somebody told me, I've always done it, that's how I was taught. Not to mention the placebo effect is real.  What's the science behind needling hammers from the shoulders rather than the side, or hardening the hammer using lacquer versus keytop versus shellac versus little pellets of plastic?  Judging by people's firm commitment to one or t'other you'd think there was. But often there isn't.  It's whatever works and sometimes it's whatever you believe works (lots of that going around these days).

I'm reminded of having attended many of Rick Baldassin's classes on various subjects and him often responding to the question of "why does that work?" with, "I don't know but I'm glad it does".  Maybe the better answer, in this case, is "it works for me".  

There are some things where the science is applicable, and many things where it isn't.  

My experience with pdf is I've done it with and without.  The pin drives easier with some, if not most, substances. Does it reduce jumpy pins or make for smoother turning pins?  Not necessarily, in my experience.   I tried it for awhile but gave up on it as an unnecessary step that yielded no consistent benefit  

BTW, does anyone still actually use delignit for pinblocks anymore?  Nasty stuff,  Can be good for bridge caps though in the right situation  

Once again I ask: What is supposed to be the "science" behind pin driving fluid (a.k.a. varnish)?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

My mentor uses a dab of gloss urethane as a driving fluid and's has done so for a long time.  I've used it on two pianos with new blocks so far (one Delignit, one 5-ply maple). Both turned out really well.

As to the original question, I also vote for going up only 1 pin size. I once made a piano very difficult to tune by going up two sizes.

As to driving fluid, are we talking about something to (slightly) lubricate the pin or something to make it tighter? Garfield was mentioned. That stuff caused wood to swell and was a last resort treatment for loose pins, right?

I have never used pin driving fluid and have tuned a few nasty pinblocks where I know someone did. I would go up one size. I also like to mic the pins and sort them into three piles Small, Medium and Large. I use the largest in the bass, medium in the middle, and small in the treble. Tuning pins usually vary +- .001 and occasionally .002 I usually set the .002 aside for the extras pile.

I have a very nice, recent grand that needs new strings due to severe rust.

The pin's torque was quite acceptable when I extracted them and they measured as .275" which is about 1/0 and they were 2 3/8".

Should I just repin at 2/0 or try a 3/0 or ream to some other size?

Let the discussions begin....