Hi Bill, I guess, as sometimes happens, I didn't make myself completely clear. :-) >At 07:02:52 -0500, 7/1/00 Avery Todd <avery@ev1.net> wrote: > >Lower hammers give less aftertouch and higher gives more. > >You're not using a predetermined hammer blow distance this way > >because there are some pianos that it just won't work to set the blow > >distance to a predetermined measurement. > >Avery Todd describes the blow-priority approach, beginning with a standard >dip and using blow to achieve (adjust) aftertouch. No, not at all. Yes, I usually use a "standard" dip (app. 10 mm) to begin with but I then set the sample(s) hammer blow at a height to achieve the aftertouch I want, not raise or lower individual hammers to achieve that aftertouch! Then that blow distance becomes my fixed measurement. >The basic fact is that >aftertouch is a function of blow AND dip, and the keep it simple for our >regulation, we'd prefer to make one fixed and vary the other. I agree. I think the confusion is that I arrive at that "fixed" measurement a different way than you do. But once arrived at, it "does" stay constant. > Given my >concern about the inclination of the shanks at rest. I prefer to fix the >blow (for Steinway's, 1.75": others, 1.875"), and put in an aftertouch for >each note as Ed describes. >In fact, this approach will produce unequal dip. I agree. >But it is my experience that this 0.010" is far less noticeable added to a >dip of .390" to produce a uniform aftertouch, than it is when missing from >the aftertouch of a uniform dip. ( A 0.010" addition to a .390" dip is 2.5% >variation from a standard dip, but when it's missing from the aftertouch of >this standard dip it amounts to 20% of a desired 0.050" aftertouch. Which >is why pianists will appreciate a close regulation of aftertouch with a >wiggling dip (wiggling in its measurements), instead of a uniform dip with >ragged aftertouch. In my defense, that is precisely why I said in my original post: >.....you can go back and make slight adjustments to the dip to even out the >aftertouch, where necessary. I guess that where I confused the issue is not clarifying that I use that method, basically, to determine what the hammer blow needs to be instead of just setting it to a definite, predetermined number. Then that does stay constant. Before I'm finished though, I definitely go back through and even out the aftertouch, which will produce the slightly "wiggling" dip you mentioned. I think we both work for the same end result (an even aftertouch) but simply approach it a different way. So if I've understood you correctly, I guess we're not all that far apart, after all. :-) Are we? >Bill Ballard Hope I've clarified what I was trying to say a little. Avery
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC