June Journal and FW's

[Richard Brekne]

On 29.05.2002 at 23:33 Bill Ballard wrote:

>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.

Au Contrair Mess Bille Ballarde. :) One of the things that I take issue with
Jan G is that he doesnt seperate the assist spring issues from other elements
of Stanwoods thinking. I personally see no reason to be suspicious of Stanwoods
way of balancing the action just because I dont decide to go so far as to use
assist springs to further reduce FW mass then is neccessary to achieve that
balance. Nor do I see I should be suspicious because I see no need to use
gargantuan hammers which neccessitate the use of assist springs in order to
avoid likewise gargantuan amounts of lead.

 
>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.
>

Well, I will let Jan G speak for himself when and if he does decide to. But my
point was that he is not alone at all in his position relative to Stanwood.
Evidently there is quite a resistance Stateside building up as well. But
again... it would seem to me that most of this has to do with the use of
whippen assist springs and the movement towards heavier hammers by some. What I
fail to see (and am waiting anxiously for a good argumentation) is how anyone
could be less then enthralled really by the ability to solve for FW's that
match so perfectly the ratio and SW's employed. Tho David Love pointed in an
interesting direction the other day when he brought up the point about BW
evenness vs Inertia eveness. Still, I make the point that you can have it both
ways if you deal with remaining friction issues and individual leverage
problems AFTER all else is done.


>
>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

Hmmm.. I wonder how we would go about making sure of whether customer
complaints are relative to counterweighting by lead or by springs ? Assuming
rather usual BW parameters and decent regulation, I doubt that pianist by and
large would notice much a difference at all. 

I HAVE on the other hand one example tho. We had a Steinway C which the piano
department here had complained about for years relative to "uneven play". DW's
were dead on even, and BW's were not at all uneven either. Yet there were
notable variances in SW, and extreme variances in FWs.  An even SW curve and
employment of the FW's for the actions ratio and BW /WBW spec left me with a
bit of work to do with friction issues... and a little work with knuckle
positions, but after reinstallation in the piano the general BW was esentially
unchanged from its origional state, tho evened out nicely and the same pianists
and professors from our music department now declare this instrument as the
house favorite. All comments about uneven play are gone.  

This doesnt go to comparing whippen assist springs to lead per say, tho it
would seem to me that it does quite clearly point one in the direction of even
inertial play.

>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?
>

Good point.


>
>Bill Ballard RPT
>NH Chapter, P.T.G.

 Interesting reading as always Bill. :) 


>
>".......true more in general than specifically"
>     ...........Lenny Bruce, spoofing a radio discussion of the Hebrew 
>roots of Calypso music
>+++++++++++++++++++++


Richard Brekne
RPT NPTF
Griegakadamiet UiB