Grand Regulation Compromises

[Bill Ballard]

At 11:48 AM -0500 11/29/01, BobDavis88@AOL.COM wrote:
>Is there ANY chance this is one of those with the growing action brackets
>which will change leverages?

Very good thought Bob. Or this just might be one of those Aeolian 
"runt grands", whose keyboard and action, in the engineering 
department, had been squashed from a 6" piano keyboard and action. 
You know, take the 6' keyboard, trim 1" off the back end of the 
keyboard and keyframe back rail, so you can fit this 6' keyboard into 
a 5' (or did you say 4-1/2') grand action cavity. The with the 
keyframe that much shorter in the back, lay the action cleats, and 
set the action closer to the balance point by just that much. Finish 
that up with moving the capstan line forward to fallow the rep heels, 
and you've got something which wants a short blow for a regular (with 
aftertouch) dip, or a deep dip for a regular blow.


>9.5-10.5mm dip is good, including about .050 aftertouch. 10mm is best in most
>pianos, even up to 11 can be used, but it tends to feel funny, and will
>probably cause most sharps to bury. How tall are the sharps?

The consequence of low action strike ratio. Either your sharps bury, 
or the hammerline has difficulty sliding under the pinblock.

>
>There is nothing inherently wrong with 1.5" blow, except the loss of power.
>It is just an indicator of unusual design or condition, and should at least
>make you suspicious (as you are). In fact, it will probably lower the
>downweight.

Because the action leverage is trading the perception of mass and 
weight for an increase in the stroke required at the key.

>Force the dip as large as you feel comfortable with, and there
>you go. You are limited by the design, but it's worth some exploration to
>make sure that the problem IS the design.
>Bob Davis

At 8:09 AM -0800 11/29/01, Delwin D Fandrich wrote:
>Has it occurred to anyone that the pianist might be better off with somewhat
>lighter, more resilient hammers so we could move back toward a more
>realistic key travel?

Lighter more resilient  hammers by themselves would certainly lower 
the down and up weights (among other things, for starters). And they 
would certainly make possible the kind of action leverage which is 
quite capable of running with 9.0 dip. But until we've actually moved 
the capstan line, we'll still have a dip/blow dilemma. One solution 
to this dilemma is a higher action ratio. Trading off the ability to 
lift heavy hammers, and gaining a more reasonable relationship 
between blow and dip (one which works with that actual facts of the 
pianos' case), you would be ahead of the game with  "lighter, more 
resilient hammers".

>The human hands and fingers can only put up with so
>much abuse beyond which they will ultimately rebel. Even 10 mm of key travel
>should be considered excessive for rapid key work. Sure it takes a bit of
>getting used to now. Most everyone has become used to the massive actions
>required to play today's somewhat less than musical pianos, but give them a
>reasonable alternative and see what happens. (Yes, I've conducted the
>experiments--people really can play the piano with a key travel of 9.0 to
>9.5 mm. And, when the piano is tonally responsive, they love it!)
>Del

One of my favorite jazz tenor players gets a fabulous sound with a 
soft reed! I know what you're talking about, Del.

Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.

"Out here on the food chain, you either
    diet,die, or dine"
     ...........folksinger Mark Graham
+++++++++++++++++++++