---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
At 2:57 AM +1100 11/10/01, Ron Overs wrote:
>>Dr. Walter Pfeiffer makes a pretty good case for having all the
>>balance pins in one row. You could probably save yourself a good
>>deal of unnecessary heartache and labour by reading him on this
>>subject.
I read that too from the good Doc, but I don't agree with him in this
instance. Check out what happens on a speadsheet JD, you'll be amazed
at the variation in ratio should the balance pins be all placed in
the one line.
What's your view on this subject David Stanwood?
At 4:23 PM +0000 11/9/01, David Stanwood wrote:
>I'm glad you asked. I just did an experiment with my front weight
>scale jig on a Steinway Action model. If the Natural Key Weight
>Ratio is .51 and the sharp balance rail pin is in the same position
>as the natural that makes the sharp KR .69.
I pivoted the key this way and the Strike Weight Ratio figured out to
7.5 on the sharp as compared to 5.5 on the natural. From much
experiance studying actions I've found that a 7.5 ratio makes for
unbelievebly heavy dynamic touch requiring enormous amounts of key
lead to balance to a normal Down Weight with very high friction
weight and extremely shallow dip with jacks that lock up in the
repetition window when the key is depressed down onto the front
punching. A sure recipe for "heartache and Labour"...as far as the
pianist is concerned.
So I disagree with Pfeiffer on this point.
Well it's not Pfeiffer exactly that you're disagreeing with except in
so far as he says "There is no doubt that these advantages are
actually present". In order to disagree with the principle you will
need to come up with a reasoned refutation of the points made in the
claims he adduces, and I think you might find that less easy than
your flat dismissals, so I append the extract in question to refresh
your dim memories of it.
There is indeed no doubt that these advantages exist. So far as the
weighting of the keys is concerned, the normal practice of adding
lead and/or springs to achieve a given static down-weight measured at
the frontmost point of each key is, from the engineer's point of
view, rational but it can be considered nothing more than arbitrary
and will in no case result in equal touch weight so far as any player
is concerned, since each key for every player will have a range of
different touch weights and touch depths depending on what he is
playing and how he plays. A player who is used to playing a 7' grand
with long keys will notice he has to adjust his technique when he
sits at a slim Schimmell upright, since the range of weights will be
noticeably wider, but he is quite accustomed to encountering a
downweight of 100 grams and more even when playing the white keys
between the sharps on a grand piano.
I'm not, of course, suggesting that studies should be carried out to
determine the ideal down-weight individually for each key according
to the mean point at which it is attacked by the average competent
player! But I do say that I see no reason why the sharps should not
be weighed off heavier than the naturals and up to certain point the
difference would not be noticed. David's point about excessive lead
being needed is valid only in the theoretical world of the
technician, which to some extent we all inhabit. Pianists are
annoyed a lot by imperfect set-up and regulation, by excessive
friction in the action, by sluggishness owing to too heavy hammers
and too much lead, but touch weight by itself is not often a cause of
annoyance and the complaint of "heaviness" rarely stems from just the
weights being wrong.
In spite of what I said above, I think it would actually be
interesting to know at what point on average, and in different
circumstances, each key does get hit and it would nowadays not be
very difficult to make a keyboard that would record this information
accurately. Somehow or another it would probably help us.
JD
We might at this point also cite a suggestion made by L.
Chwatal in Merseburg in an article entitled "An Antiquated Principle
in Piano Designing" ["Ein alter Zopf in der Klavierkonstruktion"],
published in the 1905-1906 volume of the [magazine] Zeitschrift f=FCr
Instrumentenbau. Chwatal makes reference to the well-known fact that
when playing the piano in certain keys the position of the fingers is
frequently such that the points of attack on the white keys lie
further back than those on the black keys, a circumstance which
naturally would make the relationship between the weight of the touch
on the white and black keys appear extremely adverse. In order to
compensate for this to some extent, Chwatal advocates abandoning the
arrangement of the balance pins in two rows, having all the pins in
one row as in organ keyboards, so that adjacent points of attack have
the same key dip and the same weight of touch.
A number of years later a pianist named Emil Olbuch expressed
the same thoughts11, although proceeding more from [the standpoint
of] other considerations. Since the carrying out of this suggestion
would present no mechanical problems worth mentioning, the question
thus posed should be resolved not by the builder of the piano but
rather by the artist who plays it. The advantages offered by the
arrangement of the balance pins in a single row are pointed out in
the following remarks, taken from a book by Ludwig Riemann:
"The great difference in height between the white and black
keys on a modern day piano stands very much in the way of a uniform
playing technique. "With the old [type of] keyboard the balance pins
for the shorter black keys lie in a second row behind [those for the
white keys]. This results in an equal amount of key dip, about 1 cm,
for both the white and black keys and - provided the keys have been
well balanced - an equal weight of touch. This arrangement is
considered correct, and it would be correct if the short thumb played
exclusively on the white keys and the long fingers exclusively on the
black keys. However, this manner of playing is rare and it is much
more frequently the case that the long fingers play on the white keys
in close proximity to the black keys or in between them, or else use
the white and black keys in various combinations. Owing to the
leverlike character of the keys, their downward travel undergoes a
constant decrease toward the balance point while the weight of the
touch increases correspondingly, and so at the place where the white
keys appear between the black keys, the former already have at least
2 mm less dip and a heavier touch than the latter. In changing back
and forth from the white keys to the black keys, the fingers
encounter differences in touch. This frequently becomes more
pronounced when playing certain chords - such as C# E G A G# - in
which it is necessary for the long fingers to strike the inner
portion of the white keys, resulting in differences in key dip of
from 6 to 7 mm as well as variations in the weight of the touch. It
is this deeper downward stroke of the black keys which necessitates
their extraordinary height, and both circumstances are responsible
for the fact that the thumb must circumvent the black keys at every
turn, so that playing becomes quite complicated, and for the fact
that even recent attempts to replace this complicated fingering with
a straightforward, natural one have met with nothing more than succ=E8s
d'estime. Here is where the Olhrich keyboard steps in to rectify the
situation. Since there is no plausible reason why the black keys
should have a dip and weight of touch different from that of the
adjacent small portion of the white keys, the key dip and the weight
of touch of the two types of keys is equalized by consolidating the
arrangement of the balance pins and by balancing the keys, and the
black keys themselves, having a shallower dip, are made 2 to 3 mm
lower. And now order prevails throughout the keyboard: the touch is
uniform under all circumstances. The following important advantages
result from this design: 1. One can immediately play on this keyboard
in the usual manner without preliminary practice. The eye scarcely
notices the lowering of the black keys. The fingers can feel it, but
the sensation is a pleasant one, particularly when playing rapidly,
when playing chromatic octave runs etc., since they do not need to be
raised so high in order to use the black keys. 2. The portion of
the white keys in between the black keys is easier to get at, a
welcome improvement for those with thick fingers. 3. The changing
from a black key to a white key and vice versa is more easily
accomplished, which solves the problem of uniform fingering for all
scales and consecutive chords. 4. It is a simple matter to execute
double shakes in all keys with the sharped 23-15 or 24-15, play
chromatic runs of thirds entirely with the fingering 13-24, play
accents with the thumb, which is particularly well suited for this."
There is no doubt that these advantages are actually present;
in spite of this, the author knows of no piano builder, even among
those whose instruments are found in our concert halls, who sets his
balance pins in one row. Evidently this arrangement is used only
here and there in exceptional cases. The situation here seems to be
the same as with many other ideas and attempts in connection with the
keyboard: these are not based on an actual[ly felt] need; in any
case, it is unlikely that this system will ever be universally
adopted, since the need is not of a sufficiently general and pressing
nature.
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/09/93/ab/e1/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC