Grand Regulation Compromises

[John Delacour]

At 6:43 PM +1100 11/30/01, Overs Pianos wrote:

>I can't say I agree with either of your above paragraphs.  Have you 
>kept records of the actions you have measured over the years JD? I'm 
>surprised at your claims. During the early 1900s actions were set up 
>typically with hammer/key ratios between 7 - 8:1.  ....... Both 
>Hamburg Steinway D and Fazioli 278 have a ratio of nominally 5:1.

Let's get this clear.  Are you saying that 1900+ pianos could raise 
the nose of the hammer vertically 45 mm with a vertical key dip of 
5.63 - 6.43 mm and that if we allow an _arbitrary_ 1.5 mm for full 
escapement we can set the touch depth on such pianos as low as 7 or 8 
millimetres?!  That's the only inference I can draw from your 
statement, so either I haven't lived or I am misunderstanding your 
ratio or you need to change the statement.

Now if we take your Steinway/Fazioli CG ratio, that will give us 8.82 
for our 45 mm. + 1.5 for escapement and we have 10.32, which looks 
something like a real figure, though I haven't got either piano to 
hand to measure.


>For example;
>
>Steinway 1906 model 0
>183/217   x   95/67   x   138/20   =   8.25

The 1906 Steinway O that I have in original condition with the 
30/11/1879 reissue patent action gives

Lever centre to scribed line: 93.5
Lever centre to capstan contact: 67
Hammer centre to jack contact: ca 22
Hammer centre to hammer nose: 138.2
Key front lever (balance to ivory corner): 233
Key back lever (balance to capstan/lever heel contact: 125

According to your method of reckoning that would give, for two 
different values of the roller arc:

125/233 x 93.5/67 x 138.2/22  =  4.70
125/233 x 93.5/67 x 138.2/20  =  5.17

(Key ratio 100:186)

[I'll do the calcs more elaborately later, since your method is not mine.]


>Whereas in recent decades lower ratios have been used to cope with 
>the heavier modern hammers.
>
>For example;
>
>Yamaha 1992 C7F
>145/265   x   92.5/65   x   138/20.5   =   5.24

(Key ratio 100:183)
Sounds credible

>This change of the hammer/key ratio from higher formerly to the 
>modern lower figure is precisely why you cannot fit a modern denser 
>and heavier hammer set to an older piano with a higher ratio, ie. 
>unless you are prepared to move the capstan position and the knuckle 
>slot to revise the ratio back to what will be required for proper 
>function.

I always fit the lighter hammers and a 9 mm. roller.  Is it your 
experience that you can make enough difference by altering the 
geometry as above to accommodate the 'standard' modern Steinway 
hammer without significant overleading?  One would need to prefer the 
sound of the heavy hammers an awful lot to go to this bother, and I 
don't in this case.

On a slightly related issue, you might be interested to know that I 
bought an 1899 6'6" Lipp grand the other day at auction -- never 
touched, not tuned for 40 years, beautiful!  I pulled out the works 
expecting to find a Keller action with the spiral repetition spring 
but was delighted to find our old friend the short lever Herrburger 
action, probably in its first incarnation.  The knuckle is special 
and the jack tails are covered in doeskin but the lever is 
essentially the same as that they used up to 1914.  I'll take a 
picture and let you have it.  The 'related issue' is that Lipp grands 
have a wonderfully free action but it tends to be too light for most 
professionals.  I have had great success in the past fitting heavier 
hammers to these pianos.  This not only makes the touch more 
manageable but adds fullness to the tone.

JD