[CAUT] Glenn Gould

[Dale Erwin]

Hi Richard
 Unequivocally yes. The crux of Davids Stanwoods work is fundamentally the balance between Hammer weight and action ratios. When the light went on for me some years ago now, my action work improved dramatically and the control over the process really builds confidence. 
   In fact as a result...I now teach a class called "Action ratios and hammer weights"
 I don't think its uncommon these days for any tech doing this type of custom action balancing to hear comments like "I've never played any action this good" "It feels so good" "I can do things I've not been able too before" "Is this really my action" etc, etc. Its very rewarding. 
 We have all been the beneficiaries of all that research and measuring he did.
So yes, I think Glen could find something he like these days
Thanks to David S.


Dale Erwin... RPT
 Mason & Hamlin/Steinway/U.S pianos
www.Erwinspiano.com
209-577-8397

 
  





-----Original Message-----
From: Richard West <rwest1 at unl.edu>
To: caut <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Fri, May 18, 2012 6:11 am
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Glenn Gould


I recently read one of the better piano tech related books titled Romance on 
Three Legs.  It's an excellent book about Glen Gould's search for the "perfect" 
piano.  He never found it.  He was also very eccentric.  But he was stuck with 
the then-current trend toward the very heavy actions Steinway was putting out in 
the 60's and 70's.  It was almost painful to read about his struggles and the 
lack of resources.  I presume that these days Glenn could have found his perfect 
piano.  Given the variety of parts choices and technical knowledge and expertise 
among our finest piano technicians the extremely light action he wanted could 
have been within reach.  Is that a fair assumption?  I'm just curious.  

Richard West


On May 18, 2012, at 3:29 AM, David Stanwood wrote:

> Hi Denis,
> 
> I re-graphed your graph and created a graph showing SW zones:
> 
> http://stanwoodpiano.com/SteinwayD-StockNY-2012-05-17.pdf
> 
> I created a specification for "least work", that is to say the 
> closest possible average of the existing Strike Weights.  For this 
> set of hammers the result is a good fit for projection in a large 
> hall.  It starts at curve #9 - TopMedium and crosses up to curve #11 
> - 1/2 High at note #44.  These hammers are not unusually heavy for 
> Steinway D.  although there are plenty of examples of much lighter 
> sets coming out of Steinway NY over the years, some as light as 1/2 
> medium, and I've seen a few examples of heavier sets recently. 
> Measure, Measure, Measure is the rule here.
> 
> Your Touch Weight Metrology analysis data is important and brings up 
> the core issue with rehammering any piano.  What is a good ratio 
> match for the hammer weight? (or vise versa)  In this case the hammer 
> weight is the priority for full projection in a big hall.  Your 
> analysis by sampling Strike Weight Ratio across the keyboard 
> indicates an average ratio of 5.9.  This is a problem.  If you want 
> to go with the recommended Strike Weights in the High Zone the 
> dynamic feel of the action will be too heavy with this mismatch.
> 
> I can report directly from experience on this.  David Andersen has a 
> Steinway D with SALA (Stanwood Adjustable Leverage Action).  We've 
> been showing piano this around LA and also brought it to Seattle for 
> a conference.  The Strike Weights on this piano were set at curve #10 
> - 1/4 high with a median ratio of Strike Weight Ratio of 5.5.  A 
> number of what I would call - Strong Male Professional Pianists 
> tested out this piano and settled on a touch setting of #4, (#1 being 
> lightest and #5 heaviest.)  #4 SALA setting corresponds to a ratio of 
> 5.8.  So your piano with a slightly heavier weight level with a 
> higher ratio of 5.9 would feel too heavy for these strong fellos by 
> this reckoning.  You want to create an action that has broad appeal 
> to visiting pianists.  So 5.9 will narrow the field tremendously.  By 
> another note Andersen's SALA D piano, Lang Lang performed on it and 
> preferred SALA setting #1 which corresponds to a ratio of 5.2.
> 
> I'm assuming you have current Steinway parts with a Knuckle Core 
> radius of 17mm.
> The solution for you might be to work with the capstan line to reduce 
> the ratio level to a more average appeal.  I recommend 5.5.  This is 
> also the standard established by studies of Hamburg Steinways which 
> showed average ratio of 5.5 and average Strike Weights that closely 
> match what you have in this example of Stock NY Steinway D Hammers.
> 
> If you are not confident in moving a capstan line then I advise 
> seeking help from someone skilled in this.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> David STanwood


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20120518/0b59e62d/attachment-0001.htm>