Re Grand Action Geometry

[Kenneth Sloane]

                      Subject:                              Time:  5:01 PM
  OFFICE MEMO         Re Grand Action Geometry              Date:  6/14/95

            ----------------PREVIOUS POST--------------

In a message dated 95-06-10 17:29:33 EDT, Richard West wrote:

>Are all 9' concert grand actions created equal when looked at from a
>geometric perspective?  In other words, can there be many geometric
>variations to get the most power, repetition, and control out of an action
given
>a 9' length and less concern about the economics of building the
>"ideal" piano than a smaller grand.  Secondly, if there is an ideal,
>can we in the field really recognize that any one particular action is
>not up to par.

                     ----------MY REPLY--------------

There have been many postings on the network about your questions. David
Stanwood has done a lot of research in this regard and you might want to
contact him for information. Another possibility for information is in
Albuquerque at the national. I know David will be teaching, and I am giving a
slide presentation about a second action I made for a concert grand here at
Oberlin. The primary motive for the additional action was to have two voicing
options ("bright" for orchestral use and "dark" for chamber music). However, I
changed the geometry (leverage) on the new action to give less inertia and a
"better" feel. The modifications were problematic because both actions had to
fit in the same action cavity. The two actions are quickly interchangable,
though (matter of minutes), and pianists really like having a choice even
though only one piano is available. They feel and sound quite different, and I
will have quality tapes to play at the convention of both actions.

Ken Sloane, Oberlin Conservatory