June Journal and FW's

[Richard Brekne]

On 29.05.2002 at 22:38 David Love wrote:

>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.
>
>

I aggree completly with your opening statement, and once again I like the
direction you point in with this whole observation. I'm not sure personally
just what amount of inertia is or isnt desirable, but I like to try and stick
with middle of the road solutions for now. I do welcome the discussion
centering around the question tho. Finding something that reasonably equates to
what pianists experience as "optimal inertia" should be high on our list of
"Wanna Knows"

The same thing goes for BW component proportions really. Too much UW can be
just as detrimental as too little.
>
>
>> 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".

Im not convinced we should be thinking in terms of what pianists should have to
get used to or not, as much as finding what they feel most comfortable with.
Both in general terms and on an individual basis. Stanwood allows us tools to
look in this direction, and certainly allows us the tools to employ differing
solutions for individual tastes. The trick is more to find out what is desired,
and not so much the execution.


>
>David Love


Richard Brekne
RPT NPTF
Griegakadamiet UiB