@@CoenvanDongen For instance at 0:45 where you are shaving down some of the wood, or 1:18 where you are apparently melting wax into a hole and stuffing it with felt. My feeling watching it was that there would be this slight variation from the manual steps done to each key, but maybe it doesn't impact the action at all, is too subtle to detect, or otherwise is compensated for with weights and fine tuning of the action.
@@synapticaxon9303 at 0:45 I’m scraping the keys for aesthetics. There is fingergrease on the wood and I’m scraping it of for a nicer look. At 1:18 I’m removing the old felt and placing a mortise caul. With removing the felt with steam the wood of the key gets wet. The mortise caul will make sure al the keyholes will dry and shrink back to the same size. These are things that does not influence weight. The weighing is later in the video.
Hello Robert, I think I'm not really sure what you mean. For every action I calculate a new sheet with front weight for the keys. It depends on the Hammerweight and the Ratio wich is different in every action. You can calculate it yourself: Balance Weight + Frontweight = Key Ratio x Wippen Weight + Strike weight x Ratio (BW + FW = KR x WW + SW x R) A balance weight of 38 is usually fine. The rest can be measured. More details in measuring can be found here th-cam.com/video/dLL-w69uXGs/w-d-xo.html You can use MS excel to make a sheet of this formula or reach out to David Stanwood for his software or sheets. In Europe we have the PTDAE wich provide very useful software for this.
@@robertvasi Ah that's just a soundboard shim with some lines to keep the distance between the lead as even as possible. I'm planning to make a video later this year about this way of making a lead pattern. In that video I wil give al measurements and explain al the jigs I use. Subscribe and I'll keep you'll be notified ;)
I wonder who made the decision to change over to butterfly-spring wippens. My 1978 Bechstein still has the single-spring wippens and there's no problem with repetition
I made that decision ;) The whippens were around 100 years old. They just needed to be replaced to achieve a good result when restoring the action. The reasons why I choose the newer whippen: Weight is lower, they are more stable to regulate, the spring tension increases at travel which makes them a bit faster. As far as I know every manufacturer uses the new butterfly whippens these days. The old whippen design is fine and repetition is fine too, but If you need to replace anyway. A slighly better whippen is preferred offcourse ;)
@@CoenvanDongen Newer is not always better. Bechstein have gone completely away from having agraffes all the way to the top note. The were famous for that, but no longer.
@@CoenvanDongen The fastest repetition i ever experienced in a piano was the Bechstein model B203 s/n 152948 (1962) The instrument had a few problems, but action weighting and repetion speed were first rate. It had single-spring wippens.
@@CoenvanDongen My own piano, the Hardman grand No, 29072 was very hard to play with a 67 gram touch weight (blame the rebuilders) So when No. 152948 came into the studio, it was a night and day difference. I was working them old Hans Moeller 1901-1995) and his store had new Bechsteins, Feuric, Schimmel and Kawai, so I learned to discern from one piano to the next. I imagine that 152948 might have had a hammer carting procedure done before it came to me. Therefore the overall key weight must have been down around 48-49 grams. I was able to aabsolutely fly on that 1962 Bechsten. .
In my opinion there happened some mistakes: 1.: You added to much lead. Some keys have lead at the front AND the rear of the key, which is useless and will show to much inertia. 2.: You changed the position of the capstan ("pilote") in a way, which makes it necessary to use more lead in the front, as the result. That's exactly what we can see later in the video. 3.: The hammer should rise exactly vertically BEFORE you glue the hammer heads. The heat treatment you use for correction of the hammer position is not very stable in a long term view. 4.: I would never bore holes in a hammer head, as this can change the sound significantly in comparison to the others. PTD is a great thing, but your execution of this idea in the shown example contained some errors unfortunately, I think. Sorry !
1. I think you’ve seen that wrong. I would never put lead in front and in the back of the key. There is also not to much lead in the key. The frontweight is within the ptd curve. 2 I changed the capstan to match the ratio with the hammerweight. 3. I did, and also it is not always necessary. I would love to hear a better heat treatment if you have one. 4. Yes the tone changes because the weight changes. In other words I’m calibrating the hammerweight so I’m also calibrating the tone. I know that conservative technicians will disagree ;)
It‘s not about conservatism: The weight is one influence on the tone, but as you know there are other things you also change with the boring (f.e. same felt but less wood material). At 19:20 it looks like lead in the rear part, but probably it‘s only a filled hole, as I can see now. So that’s ok, but I still think you have a lot in the front, which has to do with the capstan position assumably. Concerning capstan position: It seems you stick to much on the hammer weight factor. With changing the capstan position you mainly get another action ratio, this modifies the needed front weight AND the necessary striking distance AND the necessary key dip. I would measure the action ratio first and then look for a possible better capstan placement to achieve a less high action ratio if necessary. You increased the action ratio with your capstan position instead. I know it‘s possible with the light Bechstein hammerheads, but I never could see (or hear) any advantage with it in other actions. Old Steinways also have this high action ratio, which works quite ok with light hammers but I would never change an existing capstan position determined by the manufacturer in that increasing direction. It‘s another thing if you’re going to reduce the action ratio. PTD is great, but personally I prefer this approach to action regulating: www.erwinspiano.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/actio-ratio-USING-THE-ERWIN-ACTION-RATIO-GUAGE.pdf Concerning the heat treatment: I know it’s a common way to do that, but of course it’s possible to avoid that completely, which is recommended for better long term stability. But: Many things and how you do it have to do with personal taste, and if your action now works well and customers are satisfied then of course everything went right ! ;-)
@@SergejBortkiewicz you might want to check out my other PTD video. There I explain what I do and why I do it. It’s easy to comment if you do not know exactly what is happening in a PTD design. I do not understand your comment about changing ratio, strike weight and key dip. Those are always connected. There is no way to adjust one. I know the erwin ratio gauge method. I have the tool. PTD is more versatile imo
Beautifully made actions, many thanks. Jim from AUSTRALIA ❤😊😊😊.
Great piano rebuilding video~~!
Amazing work and a true artisan.
This is really great, Thank you for making and posting!
Thank you! Great job! Very useful
Excellent, thanks for the video
GREAT MAESTRO!!
Браво. Какой аккуратный труд.
It would br beneficial to narrate and explain each step as you go along and why each step is necessary, and what is gained.
Might do that next time!
What is the white substance used for filling?
Hola cuál es la pasta macilla que usa para tapar los orificios? Saludos!!
Abatron (lightweight) wood epoxy
@@CoenvanDongen muchas gracias!!
Do you find much variance in the action due to minor differences in scraping slivers of wood, wax quantities, etc?
I do not understand your question. What do you mean with scraping slivers and wax quantities?
@@CoenvanDongen For instance at 0:45 where you are shaving down some of the wood, or 1:18 where you are apparently melting wax into a hole and stuffing it with felt. My feeling watching it was that there would be this slight variation from the manual steps done to each key, but maybe it doesn't impact the action at all, is too subtle to detect, or otherwise is compensated for with weights and fine tuning of the action.
@@synapticaxon9303 at 0:45 I’m scraping the keys for aesthetics. There is fingergrease on the wood and I’m scraping it of for a nicer look. At 1:18 I’m removing the old felt and placing a mortise caul. With removing the felt with steam the wood of the key gets wet. The mortise caul will make sure al the keyholes will dry and shrink back to the same size. These are things that does not influence weight. The weighing is later in the video.
What hammers are those ? Cold press? What brand?
Abel, Natural Felt
@@CoenvanDongen they look very round that’s why I asked . I just finished installing Abel “Americana” on Yamaha C7
Hey Coen, can you share your key lead pattern sheet . That would be very helpful. You can add links in description. Thanks
Hello Robert, I think I'm not really sure what you mean. For every action I calculate a new sheet with front weight for the keys. It depends on the Hammerweight and the Ratio wich is different in every action. You can calculate it yourself: Balance Weight + Frontweight = Key Ratio x Wippen Weight + Strike weight x Ratio (BW + FW = KR x WW + SW x R) A balance weight of 38 is usually fine. The rest can be measured. More details in measuring can be found here th-cam.com/video/dLL-w69uXGs/w-d-xo.html You can use MS excel to make a sheet of this formula or reach out to David Stanwood for his software or sheets. In Europe we have the PTDAE wich provide very useful software for this.
Hi Coen, look in this video at 18:01. This is what I meant. You are using jig to reinstall lead . I need this jig 😅
@@robertvasi Ah that's just a soundboard shim with some lines to keep the distance between the lead as even as possible. I'm planning to make a video later this year about this way of making a lead pattern. In that video I wil give al measurements and explain al the jigs I use. Subscribe and I'll keep you'll be notified ;)
@@CoenvanDongen Thank you
I wonder who made the decision to change over to butterfly-spring wippens. My 1978 Bechstein still has the single-spring wippens and there's no problem with repetition
I made that decision ;) The whippens were around 100 years old. They just needed to be replaced to achieve a good result when restoring the action. The reasons why I choose the newer whippen: Weight is lower, they are more stable to regulate, the spring tension increases at travel which makes them a bit faster. As far as I know every manufacturer uses the new butterfly whippens these days.
The old whippen design is fine and repetition is fine too, but If you need to replace anyway. A slighly better whippen is preferred offcourse ;)
@@CoenvanDongen Newer is not always better. Bechstein have gone completely away from having agraffes all the way to the top note. The were famous for that, but no longer.
@@CoenvanDongen The fastest repetition i ever experienced in a piano was the Bechstein model B203 s/n 152948 (1962) The instrument had a few problems, but action weighting and repetion speed were first rate. It had single-spring wippens.
@@studentjohn35 And what was the reason for the fastest repetition you ever experienced?
@@CoenvanDongen My own piano, the Hardman grand No, 29072 was very hard to play with a 67 gram touch weight (blame the rebuilders) So when No. 152948 came into the studio, it was a night and day difference. I was working them old Hans Moeller 1901-1995) and his store had new Bechsteins, Feuric, Schimmel and Kawai, so I learned to discern from one piano to the next. I imagine that 152948 might have had a hammer carting procedure done before it came to me. Therefore the overall key weight must have been down around 48-49 grams. I was able to aabsolutely fly on that 1962 Bechsten. .
In my opinion there happened some mistakes:
1.: You added to much lead. Some keys have lead at the front AND the rear of the key, which is useless and will show to much inertia.
2.: You changed the position of the capstan ("pilote") in a way, which makes it necessary to use more lead in the front, as the result. That's exactly what we can see later in the video.
3.:
The hammer should rise exactly vertically BEFORE you glue the hammer heads. The heat treatment you use for correction of the hammer position is not very stable in a long term view.
4.: I would never bore holes in a hammer head, as this can change the sound significantly in comparison to the others.
PTD is a great thing, but your execution of this idea in the shown example contained some errors unfortunately, I think. Sorry !
1. I think you’ve seen that wrong. I would never put lead in front and in the back of the key. There is also not to much lead in the key. The frontweight is within the ptd curve.
2 I changed the capstan to match the ratio with the hammerweight.
3. I did, and also it is not always necessary.
I would love to hear a better heat treatment if you have one.
4. Yes the tone changes because the weight changes. In other words I’m calibrating the hammerweight so I’m also calibrating the tone.
I know that conservative technicians will disagree ;)
It‘s not about conservatism: The weight is one influence on the tone, but as you know there are other things you also change with the boring (f.e. same felt but less wood material).
At 19:20 it looks like lead in the rear part, but probably it‘s only a filled hole, as I can see now. So that’s ok, but I still think you have a lot in the front, which has to do with the capstan position assumably.
Concerning capstan position:
It seems you stick to much on the hammer weight factor. With changing the capstan position you mainly get another action ratio, this modifies the needed front weight AND the necessary striking distance AND the necessary key dip.
I would measure the action ratio first and then look for a possible better capstan placement to achieve a less high action ratio if necessary. You increased the action ratio with your capstan position instead.
I know it‘s possible with the light Bechstein hammerheads, but I never could see (or hear) any advantage with it in other actions. Old Steinways also have this high action ratio, which works quite ok with light hammers but I would never change an existing capstan position determined by the manufacturer in that increasing direction. It‘s another thing if you’re going to reduce the action ratio.
PTD is great, but personally I prefer this approach to action regulating: www.erwinspiano.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/actio-ratio-USING-THE-ERWIN-ACTION-RATIO-GUAGE.pdf
Concerning the heat treatment:
I know it’s a common way to do that, but of course it’s possible to avoid that completely, which is recommended for better long term stability.
But: Many things and how you do it have to do with personal taste, and if your action now works well and customers are satisfied then of course everything went right ! ;-)
@@SergejBortkiewicz you might want to check out my other PTD video. There I explain what I do and why I do it. It’s easy to comment if you do not know exactly what is happening in a PTD design. I do not understand your comment about changing ratio, strike weight and key dip. Those are always connected. There is no way to adjust one.
I know the erwin ratio gauge method. I have the tool. PTD is more versatile imo