I took the "dig-in" description to refer to resistance rather than amount of key dip. There is a feeling of control that comes with an acceptable level of weight/resistance. Client input doesn't have to include tech terminology but still needs to be heard. The challenge is how to physically introduce them to the options. Bob Hull Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net> Sender: caut-bounces at ptg.org Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:50:37 To: <caut at ptg.org> Reply-To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound It's not hogwash, it's observation. You may not like the data but the it's just data. I didn't invent it. Client driven? Most clients know nothing of leverage and such and would never even consider it if it weren't presented. Even using after the fact client comments can be dangerous in terms of setting a standard. Set up anything that produces some uniformity after the client plays on a poorly set up action that is uneven and they will react with enthusiasm. But compared to what? We recently engaged in a conversation about just what the pianist really feels (or hears) at the keyboard and what they respond to. I find myself being more and more careful about what that is and try and differentiate between my perspective as a technician and the pianist's viewpoint as a player. Understanding the disconnect between technician and player (good topic for a general article--I might write it someday), approaching the piano from opposite sides of the coin is an important part of all this and I constantly question whether my choices don't come too much from the technician perspective and not enough from the player point of view. It's easy to go down the wrong path if you don't pay attention to that. You mention that one pianist preferred a medium light setting for some repertoire--say, impressionistic (I don't know what it was but that would make sense, or Scarlatti maybe). How would they have reacted to a piano that had medium high weight but had higher leverage, shallower dip, and greater range of acceleration of the hammer? What are they really responding to? For that repertoire perhaps with a lower leverage, deeper dip set up they needed lighter. But given a shallower dip, longer blow maybe they would have preferred heavier? Do we know? Those are the kinds of comparisons that need to be made. You mention that a pianist wants something they can "really dig into"? What does that mean? That they want deeper dip? When I think about that, in all my years doing this, I don't think I've ever once had a pianist ask me for deeper dip (unless the piano was simply not regulated properly or the dip had shallowed out due to wear). However, I have had pianists comment, not infrequently, that they seem to get buried in the keys and that is usually associated with actions that are set up with dip that is in the 10.5 mm range (or beyond). Please don't take my comments as an indictment of "Stanwood Touch Design" per se. It wasn't meant that way. You produce guidelines with what you see are limits and it's up to the designers to follow that protocol or not. But just because you set a limit doesn't mean (I presume) that the target should be that limit. I realize that Steinway actions have been all over the place and finding a standard is at best difficult. My point was that the original set up was fairly consistently targeted (even if not consistently achieved) and that was with a higher ratio and lighter weight hammers. Your limit for dip might be 10.5 but I have seen actions set up using your methods with the dip deeper in an attempt to achieve some associated low leverage targets, remove maximum amounts of lead combined with relatively heavy hammers. By the original standard that would be "non Steinway". My questions (and they were really posed more as questions) was whether the trend in low ratios with those particular goals is a good one or doesn't have some potential down sides. Personally speaking, I'm not sure that it is a good one and that is in part because even though you might establish a lower limit, someone will always want to test it and see if more isn't better. An action ratio of 5.3 (your system number) produces something that I think is questionable in terms of performance and has other ramifications. Even if one achieves a 10.5 dip and compensates by "cramming" the blow (I'm not sure what that term means but I assume it means to shorten it) there are consequences to that in terms of repetition, power and tone (heavier hammers in the treble section in particular) that one should also be examining. You make the statement "This SALA Steinway D had 1/4 high hammer Strike Weights which give an appropriate Steinway Sound for concert stage". Do they? Does that mean that a 1/4 low SW (not that familiar with the specific numbers associated with your terms without going to the charts) would give an inappropriate Steinway sound for the concert stage? You're making an assumption here and I'm not convinced. Steinways from the 1920's and earlier certainly had had hammers that were much lighter than 1/4 high. Did they produce an inappropriate sound for the concert stage? I don't think Rubenstein would have said that, or Horowitz. While a higher strike weight system may be appropriate for some piano soundboards and scales (speaking of tone here) that require that type of mass (and accompanying density), it may be inappropriate for others. In the case of Steinway in particular I'm not sure that the belly design/execution has changed in such a way since the accepted use of lighter hammers (in the early part of the 20th century) and higher ratios to warrant a change in the approach. In fact, the current Steinway belly with full diaphragmization might arguably be even lighter and have greater internal velocity than existed back in the 1920's. That might argue for even a lighter hammer. My point in all this is not so much to offer answers but to raise the questions I think we should be asking and not get caught up in trends that may or not push us in a direction that when all things are considered is really producing a better result. That being said, there's no question that I'm grateful to your commitment and input to this end of the discussion over the years. It's certainly heightened my awareness of the issues. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Stanwood Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 4:40 AM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound Mr. Love, In regards to your statement: >I don't know about a "non-steinway" touch but the Stanwood system users >sometimes push the lower limits of action ratios with the belief that if low >inertia is good, lower is even better. <snip> This is hogwash. ;-) The motivation to push the lower limits of action ratios is always client driven. Precision Touch Design installers are trained to make a determinations based on qualitative (listening to the client and the piano) and quantitative (touch weight metrology) information. Then, using our collective experience and wisdom, we make a judgement as to the best combination of touch design parameters that will satisfy the client. If pushing the limits makes them happy then we've succeeded. Our limit for dip is 10.5mm. If the so called traditional specs are to be sacrificed for low ratio in order to achieve aftertouch, then it should be in cramming the blow. Extreme low ratios are not in the realm of "Steinway Touch". I would characterize that as simply a firm solid touch that a professional pianist can really dig into. This kind of touch has been produced by many variations of action ratio and hammer weights over the years. SALA pianos (pianos with Stanwood Adjustable Leverage Action) are providing choice to the pianist and informative feedback to the piano designer. We've only just begun to take data in Conservatories as to what the most preferred ratio settings are. The Steinway D which we showcased at the PNWC in Seattle last year was played by three professional pianists during the conference and each preferred a medium heavy setting but one preferred a medium light setting for certain repertoire. This SALA Steinway D had 1/4 high hammer Strike Weights which give an appropriate Steinway Sound for concert stage. On the medium high setting the ratio would be 5.7 with a 41 Balance Weight (53 down weight with 12 friction). On the Medium Light setting the ratio would be 5.3 with a 35 balance weight (47 down weight with 12 friction). David Stanwood "Just trying to help"
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC