At 1:51 PM -0700 5/29/02, David Love wrote:
>Interesting to hear the opposition to the Stanwood camp on assist springs.
>I tend to agree.
I wouldn't make a generalized statement after reading of one Jan
Grossbach, as reported by Richarde duBrekne. Certainly, if one
doesn't like assist springs, then one would be suspicious of David
Stanwood's ideas. I am also in full agreement that if your geometry
is carefully laid out on paper (all the reflexes being properly
tuned, and all problems solved), and your execution is similarly blue
ribbon, your action will come out problem free. Virtue is rewarded.
At 8:34 PM +0200 5/29/02, Richard Brekne wrote:
>He takes the position (as I understand it) that says whippen assist
>springs should only do enough work >to even out Downweight
>variations, and that these should be so accurate to begin with that
>assist >springs are really superfluous.
He's certainly going to have to depend on perfect execution of the
design, if his measure of action resistance can't distinguish between
weight and friction. Without the ability to construct a profile of
the action's weight and to judge where it might need help, one would
hope that the adjustment his DWs tell him to make with the helper
spring are minor. Otherwise, anything might be happening in there,
and DWs might not be the brightest flashlight in the kitchen drawer
to scope out a bad action.
At 1:51 PM -0700 5/29/02, David Love wrote:
>I will say that I don't use assist springs as part of an
>action design. However, I can see how one might use them on an existing
>action with weight problems when you don't want to change the hammers or
>existing geometry, or to achieve an unusual result. For example, I have a
>customer who has problems with her hands. She wanted a balance weight down
>around 26 grams. Definitely non standard. The piano is a S&S D with
>Steinway hammers. The options were to turn the hammers into q-tips, move
>the capstan and end up with 1/2" key dip, fill the keys with lead, or add an
>assist spring. I opted for the assist spring.
You mean, that's not a redesigning of the action? It certainly
includes the introduction of a supporting force where none was
before, as well as making robust use of it. And not necessarily
because the action itself was poorly located ("hung"). I'd guess,
David, that the action of this D was running just fine before she
asked for 26g BWs.
>The other issue is one of design versus execution. It is one thing if a
>piano has a bad design that needs improving. It is another if the piano has
>a good design which is just poorly executed. Steinway pianos fall
>frequently into the later category. I think it is a good design that runs
>into problems with poor execution, namely, inconsistent capstan placement
>and mismatched hammer weights for varying action ratios.
In reviewing the design of the Steinway action, I think we should not
hold them responsible for not guessing a hundred years ago, in the
days of light hammers, 16mm knuckle mounting distance and 7:1 Strike
Balance Ratios, that a hundred years later, the genuine replacement
NY Steinway hammers would be far too heavy for the earlier keyboards.
Where I would say the Steinway's grand action design was not complete
or fully functional, was in its integration with the belly and plate.
The factory had a long-standing problem with #88 strike point
wandering from front to back. They simply allowed the board block and
plate to settle in as these saw fit. In an oversight, the top action
followed #88 strike, while the keyframe was locked in place. In a
further oversight, there was no proper investigation of the penalty
for miscoupling of the top action and the keyframe, or at least one
which would have produced the engineering fix required. Steinway
grands with thin belly rail felt had clumsy actions.
A good grand action design is one which includes the instructions
needed to keep execution right in line with design. Here that was
missing. Which is why we are so busy fixing these little things.
>I think that
>before one starts monkeying with changing the characteristics of a
>successful design, one should be sure that the outcome is in fact what the
>customer wants. This can be said about other things besides action design,
>for example, scaling. Moreover, I think the customer should be made aware
>if a design change deviates considerably from standard for that manufacturer
>and you should have the customer sign that they agree to such a change. I
>have recently been called upon to undo two such changes (original work not
>performed by me) because the result was not what the customer expected, nor
>liked.
It comes with the territory.
>Immersing ourselves in design technology it is easy to lose sight of what
>attracted a customer to a piano to begin with, and to start to make
>wholesale changes without regard to their tastes and desires. Not that we
>shouldn't be asking questions and looking for improvement. But we can also
>become arrogant and overconfident in new found knowledge and it can get us
>into trouble.
I'm curious about this part. I gather that your not convinced about
high SWs (I'm not, either), or trading lead for springs (in the
balancing process).
At 12:13 AM -0700 5/29/02, David Love wrote:
>I can report anecdotal information which
>argues against this approach by two pianists recently...(snip)....
>A highly tensioned spring to allow for monster hammers is not, in my opinion,
>a desirable set up. Of course, I don't believe a monster hammer is
>desirable anyway. After hearing several such set-ups recently, I am
>totally unconvinced of the tonal benefits. More tone, yes. Better tone?
>Not in my opinion.
It sounds as though the trouble one can get into with assist springs
is tied with the use of monster hammers. Do you have experience in
which pianist' complaints had to do entirely with the behavior of
weight counter-balance by springs instead of lead, and not being
lumped with the sound and feel of monster hammers
My questions on that have yet to be answered. I'll agree, pianists
have grown up playing on a certain level of inertia. What David
Stanwood's action design makes possible is a very different level of
inertia. The real question is whether current playing actually
depends on the current level of inertia, or whether a different level
of inertia would present no real obstacle to, say, shallow playing or
deep repetition. Certainly, the pianist (if she/he be human) would
have to get used to, to learn another level of inertia, but would
their playing really require the current level of inertia?
At 8:34 PM +0200 5/29/02, Richard Brekne wrote:
>Steinway Hamburg, Schimmel, and a bunch of the
>others over here dont employ the whippen spring.
I thinking the original reason for introducing the assist spring was
forgotten inside the factories, and as the principles behind the
springs also faded from memory, the workers made more sparing used of
the springs abilities. At a certain point the spring was irrelevant,
and marketing removed it. If there's any evidence that a hundred
years ago, the factories had explored the use of assist springs the
way Stanwood has, we don't see that evidence now.
>Recently I took apart a
>Schimmel 6 foot Grand and found hammer SW's ranging from well over 14 grams
>to just about 8. I found over 65 grams of lead in a few keys. Now THAT's
>what I call massive amounts. In anycase we see that the field of play here
>is quite large indeed. Ranging from heaviest hammers of 14 + grams to 10 or
>below (McMorrow suggests less I believe), heaviest FW's ranging from nearly
>70 grams to perhaps as little as 15 grams (perhaps less ?) and assist
>springs doing 20 (+?) grams of lifiting down to "they should not be used at
>all".
All creatures great and small. They certainly didn't all come out of
the same factory in the same year.
>I like to give manufacturers at least some benifit of the doubt, and
>wonder then why they choose to seemingly ignore Stanwoods thoughts, or
>McMorrows for that matter. They still use what equates to rather uneven SW
>curves (notable exception is Steinway Hamburg over here) and the old style
>of Front Weighting. Some dont even go so far as to start off with any kind
>of pattern leading. At best this results in an even static Downweight.
Yes we should give the manufacturers the benefit of the doubt, but
what is not in doubt is how far off the mark alot of their work is.
Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.
".......true more in general than specifically"
...........Lenny Bruce, spoofing a radio discussion of the Hebrew
roots of Calypso music
+++++++++++++++++++++
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC