Touchweight Metrology Question

[David Love]

I have to agree with Jon here, I think that you are better off reducing the
weight of the hammers somewhat and then smoothing out the front weights to
get even balance weight without overloading the keys with lead.  You won't
have to worry about sharp dip because the ratio is higher than the naturals
which means you will be able to regulate with shallower relative dip.  Just
because the Stanwood system allows you to use monster hammers doesn't mean
that they sound better.  Not every pianist wants an explosion at impact.
McMorrow may have pushed the envelope in the other direction with respect to
hammer weight, but the idea is not totally without merit.  It never hurt
Horowitz.

David Love


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Brekne" <richard.brekne@grieg.uib.no>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: May 18, 2002 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: Touchweight Metrology Question


> Jon Page wrote:
>
> > At 11:39 PM 5/17/2002 +0200, you wrote:
> > >Jon Page wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > For instance, if your lower the SW of note 16 from 11.9 to 10.3.
> > > > The SBR is presently 5.8 (we'll call it 6).
> > >
> > >But Jon... his Ratio is around 5.5 for whites and close to 6 for blacks
> > >otherwise.  It would seem to me the average SBR for the whites would
ask for
> > >about the SW he has.... or what ?
> >
> > No, it stays the same because BW changes proportionally with SW
alteration
> > and consequently SBR.
> >
>
> Wait a sec Jon... you seem to be answering a different question then the
one
> asked. We KNOW already that BW changes with SW alteration, thats not at
> question.  But wait.....  "consequently SBR"  ??? .... you said
yesterday...
>
> "The SBR will stay relatively the same because the BW changes
proportionally
> with the SW. "
>
> This seems quite the opposite to what you say today... you mind clearing
that up
> ?
>
> In anycase... l dissagree with the need or desirablility to use such light
> hammers. And his ratio of 5.5 on whites can certainly take heavier
hammers.
> Certainly tho the disscussion about how much mass is disirable, both
hammer mass
> and consequently FW mass has been going on for years, and its curious to
see even
> Stanwood licsenced folks evidently breaking into two camps here.
>
> > Besides, so what. You will never get the SBR of the sharps and naturals
> > equal unless you employ assist springs.
> > So the balance rail holes may be too close together, the front key
lengths
> > might not be ideally proportional,
>
> This is not my experience. In every action I have done so far I have been
able to
> either significantly improve the disparagy between sharps and flats, or
nearly
> eliminate it. Assist springs are only neccessary if you want to lift more
then
> your front weights will allow for given a BW spec. IMHO
>
> > knuckles are slightly askew. This is not late breaking news, from any
> > manufacturer. For all practical purposes,
> > to lighten the hammers will simply bring the action into a comfortable
> > playing level. We're not talking Carnegie Hall.
>
> And since when are hammer weights on the dividing line between heavy and
medium
> weights big enough for Carnegie Hall ?  I would be tempted to point out
that this
> is a Church, and not a  practice studio. :) Stanwood  wants to install a
set of
> hammers that are off the Smart Chart scale when he comes her, and thats
just for
> a small hall on a S&S C.
>
>
> > Moving the sharp's capstans forwards may help, but so far that level of
> > expense has not been justified. Many pianos
> > have the sharp's KR .02 higher than the naturals. The question would be,
> > does the jack presently have sufficient
> > clearance of the knuckle to support a reduction in wippen travel induced
by
> > capstan relocation. Not just what looks
> > good on paper. Bear in mind the effect of hammer wear on regulation in
the
> > future.
>
> This is another one of those trade offs tho. And there are a few options
no ??
> You can opt for a bit extra height on the blacks, allow for a little extra
dip,
> reduce striking distance, or even go in the direction of hammer knuckles
as Bill
> Ballard suggested.  Perfect jack travel and clearance is just as illusive
as
> perfect blacks and whites ever were. Heck, even two parallel SBR set ups
is an
> perfectly workable option if you want to come right down to it IMHO.
>
> > If the level of playing effort is still not acceptable to the church
then
> > further advice can be given to alter the geometry but
> > for all intents and purposes lightening the hammers is what will give
the
> > best results without replacing the wippens with
> > ones employing assist springs.
>
> Grin... you are beginning to remind me of Ed McMorrow and his LWHT
philosophy. In
> any case its perfectly reasonable to set up a lower ratio and use heavier
hammers
> and a bit more FW...heck he doesnt have any lead in those keys to begin
with...
> he's already got back weighting problems an octave off the top note.
>
>
> > So it's either lighten the hammers or install wippens with assist
> > springs.  Going around in circles about SBR, is just that.
>
> Nobody is going around in circles here, trying to clear up for a couple
people
> what SBR is about is an ok thing to do is it not ? As for the rest...  I
cant buy
> it.  There are always viable options, and in this case he's got an even SW
curve,
> and an uneven and underdimensioned FW curve. I say go the other way
around, and
> back off later as needed.
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jon Page,   piano technician
> > Harwich Port, Cape Cod, Mass.
> > mailto:jonpage@attbi.com
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
> --
> Richard Brekne
> RPT, N.P.T.F.
> Bergen, Norway
> mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
> http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
>
>
>