Keyboard Regulation: Management of Return Weight and Aftertouch

You have done a good regulation. Regarding those two keys, check their leveling with the others at rest; perhaps they are slightly lower. The clicking could be a micro-scratch of the hammer head on the stiletto. Check it. The hammer-string distance is correct. With hammers further away, it is obvious that you will feel a harder keyboard. Also check the escapement and the spring, which must not be too strong (it must not cause the hammer to jump when the key is released slowly).

Thank you maestro,

the hammers and the keys at rest are all in the same position, the pusher returns too late under the roller and I don't know where to intervene to accelerate this movement.

Question b: the last 5 notes of the bass are a bit muffled as if they were a bit choked, what do you advise to make them more present? I have slightly moved them away from the strings but it is not enough, I would like more.

thanks

The escapement lever might have a slightly sluggish pivot.

For the bass notes, try straightening them with a hot iron; otherwise, they need to be impregnated.

Hello, Vincenzo, while waiting for Maestro Ferrarelli's opinion, I would like to ask you if, in your view, the closer positioning of the hammers produced a sensation of greater keyboard compactness.

i find your observations interesting because they reflect one of the problems with my instrument.... unfortunately not the only one

thanks

have a good day everyone

I would check the inclination of the pusher and the hammer drop screw (or the second escapement if you prefer it more) ...

The piano is not regulated solely by observing the equality between adjacent parts; sometimes one must find compromises....it is this aspect that often identifies a good technician compared to an amateur.

Ciao

hi massimo, my petrof had the hammers quite far from the strings, i brought them to 4.6 (i moved them closer by 2.5 mm) the keyboard feels fuller and i have more control and it screams less than before even though it still has crazy power. I did the same intervention on a friend's yamaha, same result: fuller keyboard and more control, a bit less sound in general. obviously you need to recheck the repetition cylinders because the proportions change a bit. anyway i am satisfied overall, good luck

Good morning,

i have a question regarding the issue of downweight and upweight on a grand piano that I am testing these days. I am referring to a high-quality instrument in excellent general condition, a Steinway D grand piano from the early '60s, Hamburg made, whose hammer action (original Steinway, I am certain) and strings have been replaced.

The fine regulation perhaps still needs to be checked a bit, but the "vital" parameters are in order: hammer dip 47 mm, key dip 1 cm, springs correctly calibrated, escapement fairly well-set. There remains a non-optimal ratio between the descent and ascent of the key; approximately 55 grams going down and 35 going up. It is a bit heavier than standard, but that is not the point; the fact is that a correct ratio to me would be 50 going down and 22-23 going up.

The result is that a slightly higher "force" than normal is required to keep the keys pressed during legato, and the playing sensation is not very natural because in rapid passages one feels a certain tendency of the keys to "push back" against the fingers.

Even if the weight were brought down to 50 gr. (5 less), we would have a return of 30: still 5 less, but still not a perfect ratio.

Assuming that the ratio is 2 to 1 (it isn't, but I am doing so to simplify), in theory, by bringing the downweight to 40 gr, I would have 20 going up and we "would be" set. Obviously this is only theoretical, as the piano would be too light and, above all, "padded" with lead on this side of the fulcrum: practically unplayable.

It is probably not even a problem of friction: if there were excess friction, we would have even more weight going down and less weight on the return due to the "braking" effect.

Given that—I truly believe—the solution is not to introduce friction, my questions are two:

1) The most important one: what could cause such a result given that the parts are original?

2) Bringing the downweight to 50 gr., with the consequent upweight of 30, would it improve the playability of the instrument a bit, or would it merely bring the ratio closer to the "theoretical correct" one?

I apologize for the length of the post and thank whoever wishes to offer their opinion.

c

No. On Model D, the values are quite precise and close to those dictated by the Factory. If the downweight is excessive as well as the let-off, I would say that the repetition lever is too heavy. Steinway has not made identical repetition levers over time, and the one suitable for that piano probably needs to be lighter. It must be seen. Maybe in a photo and compared with the old one.... which I hope hasn't been thrown away!!!!!!!!!!! NEVER!!!!!! In the 60s, completely different repetition levers were installed compared to those of today. It needs to be seen. And then the regulation must be checked, including that of the frame supports. If you can, let me know when the hammers were replaced. For example, those manufactured and installed in the 70s are heavier compared to those from the 60s. Let me know more details if you want.

Thank you for the prompt response!

So, I have no idea if the old hammer rail was thrown away or not.... Let's assume yes to see if there is any room for a solution anyway. The new hammer rail is one or two years old. In general terms, could the hammer tails perhaps be thinned down to reduce the downward weight?

In any case, what I don't understand is the relationship between the downward weight and the return weight. Assuming that the hammer rail is too heavy, doesn't my naive calculation hold true

that if I were to bring the weight from 55 to 50, I would still have the return go from 35 to 30, which is still too high?

It has been suggested to me (but I don't know what it means) to have the key angle checked.

What would the adjustment of the frame supports be?

thanks a lot

c

I am adding, for the sake of completeness of information, that it seems to me I was told that the weight of the new hammer was compared with the old one and they turned out to be equal.

I cannot swear to it, but I seem to have heard this statement.

thanks again

c

For the regulation, one starts precisely with the frame supports. The procedure is complex. I am quite convinced that the hammers are too heavy. Yes, it is possible to reduce the tail, but there is a limit to the hammer's proportion. By filing the tail, one can recover about 3-4-5 grams on the key. One must attempt to descend to about 48 grams with a repetition weight of no less than 20-22 + any value. However, in the grand piano, the key descent weight is not uniform. It starts at 52 in the bass and ends at 47 in the treble. In all other models, the Manufacturer suggests 47 gr.

Thank you very much for the kindness and competence shown in your answers. We will see how things evolve....along the way.