June Journal and FW's

[David Love]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Ballard" <yardbird@pop.vermontel.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: May 29, 2002 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: June Journal and FW's


> 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.

Actually my generalized statement comes from my own experience.  There are
many people jumping on this bandwagon and I'm glad to see some dissention.
Beautifully crafted theories do not always produce beautiful results.  I am
not trying to be critical of Stanwood's ideas en masse, his ideas have
helped me plenty.  But I am unconviced by the high strike weight, low
inertia and assist spring idea.

> 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
acustomer who has problems with her hands.  >She wanted a balance weight
downaround 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.

> Bill Ballard wrote:
> 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.

Of course that's redesigning that action.  As I pointed out, this was an
unusual and non standard specific request by a pianist with a physical
problem.  I was merely pointing out that the assist spring had its place in
this instance.  I had spent a great deal of time setting up the action and
balancing it to what I considered a low (34) balance weight to accommodate
her.  It played beautifully and effortlessly, I thought.  But it wasn't
light enough for her.  So I had to introduce an assist spring.  It was the
only reasonable choice.  And she understood the extent of what I was doing.

> 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.

I'm not sure what your point is here.  I'm not holding Steinway responsible
for a design that they themselves have modified with lower SBR's.  As I
said, I think the basic design is a good one which, when executed properly,
works quite well.  I'm not sure that a 7:1 ratio was the intention.  I have
seen many old Steinways with 16 mm knuckles and .48 KR that end up with a
SBR around 6:1.  That can certainly accomodate a hammer of todays dimension,
albeit on the light side.

>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. (snip)...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 it's true that a good design doesn't mean much if it can't be
consistently executed.  But that is no reason to condemn the design.  I
think the two things can be separated, and generally are.  One engineer
comes up with the design, another one often figures out how to put it
consistently into production.  Steinway lacked (and still lacks) consistency
in production.  Of course I love them for this.  Fixing their problems is a
significant chunk of my income.


> 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).

It's part of the American syndrome:  If some is good more is better.  If
less is good, none is better.  I don't take megadoses of vitamins either.
I'm not convinced about high SW's in terms of quality of tone.  And I really
think that tone must come first.  I sometimes think that people get so
caught up in the looking for the holy grail in the mechanics of the action
that they forget about tone production.  If you could optimize the mechanics
of the action but it required a compromise of tone, would you choose that?
I prefer to start with what I think will produce the best tone and work from
there.  That means the hammers are chosen first.  I have yet to see the
tonal benefit of a very heavy hammer.

In trading lead for springs, just because too much inertia creates a
sluggish feeling action doesn't mean we should aim for the lowest possible
inertia.  Inertia just might play a vital role in a certain type of tactile
feedback that the pianist needs to feel in control.  The best feeling
actions to me had some lead in them.  The classic 3-2-1-0 arrangement has
merit, in my opinion.  That arrangement puts the FW at about 25 % under
Stanwood FW maximum and a medium weight hammer (I'm not going to nit pick
numbers now).  I might opt for a slight modification of the SBR equation
(17mm knuckle and .52 KR rather than say 16 mm knuckle and .50 KR), which I
would not consider a design change (some black-and-whiters out there will
disagree with my liberal attitude in this respect).  But I prefer lower a
lower friction coefficient so that I can achieve balance weights with a
higher proportion of upweight.


> 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

Yes.  Recently, a pianist with such an arrangement complained of "bouncy
keys" and the concomitant "slow to return" problem.  Lowering the tension of
the assist spring did not solve the problem adequately.  This piano did have
heavy hammers and the pianist did complain about the tone.  But you would
think that a heavy hammer would mitigate the bouncy key and slow to return
problem.  It didn't.

In another case, a classic "new hammers old geometry arrangement" had the
problem "fixed" by a set of assist springs.  Here a relatively heavy hammer
(NY Steinway) on an original dimension knuckle (15.5?) created an undue
amount of friction in the action which, of course, was unaffected by the
addition of assist springs.  Although the balance weight was reduced by
virtue of adding the springs, a 38 BW still resulted in a 56 DW and 20 UW in
the middle of the piano.  As you would expect, it felt sluggish even with
controlled FW's.  I can't really blame the assist springs for high friction.
But the approach itself was wrong.


> 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?


Well, to quote a not unfamiliar Shakespearean character:  "That is the
question".

David Love