Touch weight

[David Love]

Richard:

I you mean have I been willing to allow a higher balance weight in order to
gain lower inertia, no, I haven't done that, though I have encountered it
on some older European pianos without any real objection.  It is not,
however, my preference. 

With respect to key lead placement.  On existing key sets, I use the
existing placement as much as possible if it falls into a pattern.  Most
good quality pianos have a distinct patter.  I will clean up the pattern if
it is totally random, as I have seen on occasion, but I don't remove all
leads, plug all holes and start over, as I have seen some people do.  When
starting from scratch with a new set of keys, my current preference is a
minimum number of leads:  3-2-1-0 going up the key board, or 4-3-2-1-0
depending on the leverage, hammer weight, balance weight combination.  I
try and set the first row of leads about 1/3  to 1/2 of the way from the
balance rail to the front of the key, but the starting point is predicated
on sample placement on the lower notes on the piano to see how the pattern
will fall into place.   I can't say that my choices are based on
calculations of inertia.  It's more based on esthetics, experience about
feels good to me, and my reluctance to drill 5 holes in any key.  I like
the FW at note 1 to be around 32 - 34 grams.  I try and space the first row
in a line parallel to the balance rail and space the other rows as evenly
as possible.  I don't mind trimming a lead here and there in order to keep
a uniform pattern.  I will say that it is the exception that I install new
sets of keys and have to deal with the leading pattern from scratch, I just
haven't gotten many pianos to do that have that kind of deterioration, but
it does happen.  

A good holiday to everyone.  
  
David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net


> [Original Message]
> From: Richard Brekne <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no>
> To: <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net>; College and University Technicians
<caut@ptg.org>
> Date: 12/19/2003 5:13:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Touch weight
>
> I would agree with your conclusions 100 % David. I am curious tho as to
whether
> you've begun to play around with the idea of trading FWs for key inertia
yet.
> And for that matter...how do you distribute the lead you use to achieve
any
> given front weight, and what are your reasonings for whatever decisions
you
> have.
>
> At the moment, I am going for distributing leads about the midpoint
between the
> balance rail and key front... tho a few I know mean that its better to
move
> that out a bit... say 2/3'ds the distance...tho they have been unable to
really
> say why. We do know that we get less key inertia for same FW the closer we
> concentrate mass towards the middle. Course there is no doubt a practical
limit
> there... but just so.
>
> At any rate.. I would be pleased to hear your thoughts on why you place
leads
> where you do.
>
> Cheers
> RicB
>
> David Love wrote:
>
> > It's simply a guideline.  The maximum also does not suggest that inertia
> > problems suddenly begin once you exceed the maximum.    Adding weight
adds
> > progressively more inertia until at some point it becomes objectionable.
> > That subjective line will vary.  As is usually the case, it's a bell
shaped
> > curve.   I personally prefer a maximum a bit lower than this; around
80% of
> > the published maximum, and I am content with a correspondingly lighter
> > strike weight or hammer.  Matching the exact curve is not that
important as
> > long as it's a smooth curve.  Encroaching on or exceeding the maximum is
> > less of a problem at the top of the action where there is less mass in
the
> > hammer and, therefore, less overall lead in the key, than at the bottom.
> >
> > David Love
> > davidlovepianos@earthlink.net
> >
> > > There is no where any real documentation that I am aware of that
> > justifies any
> > > precise assumptions about Maximum FWs. Indeed... I would think that
given
> > the
> > > variance possible in key inertia for same FW... such a table would be
in
> > the
> > > end less then usefull to begin with.  In anycase... todays maximum
table
> > is to
> > > no small degree a subjective opinion... which means any assumptions
about
> > what
> > > SW is appropriate for any given SWRatio is also equally subjective.
> > >
> > > That being said... there is also a good deal of experience and data
that
> > lies
> > > behind that subjective opinion.... so untill we get further with
figuring
> > in
> > > Key inertia into this picture.... its a good reference table.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > RicB
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Brekne
> > > RPT, N.P.T.F.
> > > UiB, Bergen, Norway
> > > mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
> > > http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
> > > http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
> --
> Richard Brekne
> RPT, N.P.T.F.
> UiB, Bergen, Norway
> mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
> http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
> http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html
>