Touchweight Metrology Question

[Richard Brekne]

David Love wrote:

> I was being a bit facetious about Horowitz, the point was more to convey
> that I think McMorrow's views should not to be totally ridiculed in terms of
> quality of tone.
>
> David Love

Well I sure hope you didnt get that idea from me :) Ed is a good personal friend
of mine, and has helped me on a number of occasions. He was a good friend to my
brother who died a few years back as well. We all lived in Edmonds and tho I
didnt get to spend a whale of a lot of time with him, he is one of those guys
you learn a lot from in a short time. And I still adhere to many of his thoughts
on plates and front terminations.

Ed does great work and I like the sound of his instruments. I think they are
generally to light touched for my tastes, tho this isnt because of DW specs.

Another Seattle-ite told me once that it was probably a good idea to think in
terms of just how fast you think an action has to be able to play. And just how
much the keys should stick to the fingers instead of either running away from
them or shoving them around.

Eds thinking is as much based on the desire for as little mass in the system as
is possible then anything else, and he justifies the lost hammer mass in terms
of velocity and inertia concerns. Grossly over simplified.... what you loose in
hammer mass you gain in velocity and the resultant force is supposed to be more
or less the same.

Yet I have come to believe that a reasonable amount of mass in the action is
desirable, both hammer mass and counterbalancing FW mass.  Pianists, it seems to
me,  like to feel more "umph" from an action than is obtainable in low mass
actions. But hey... thats the beauty of our buisness.... there are lots of
acceptable ways of setting things up. Different strokes and all that Im sure. :)




--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html