----------------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
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC