This is a very interesting discussion. For sure the study of David Stanwood deserve a lot of merit and respect. If this study where not done, we would not have third wonderful weight methodology and approach. Talking of heavy hammers and assist springs, the demonstration of what may not be done have been done more than once by Schimmel on their grand's in the 70' . In fact their piano, where assist springs where used all along, , where having gross #5 hammers, an apparent 48 g DW, and where not even playable more than half an hour without pain. The techs at this time used to counterbalance the spring tension unevenness with the leading, so a lot of irregularities appear after awhile on these (other while well build) pianos. I did not jump in the discussion before because of my limited experience of the Stanwood design and Metrology, but for sure it allows me to have a better understanding of the kind of efficiency an action have, and to obtain a better match between hammer's weight and the action. I had a little grand Gaveau (1925) the original setup was : no leading in the keys, hammers in the medium/light range, ratio 6.2-6.3 , assist springs up to the 6th octave. While the piano was not easy to regulate with its original heads (I know 2 others as that) it hasd a very responsive action and most pianists like these pianos, even if old and short scaled. The 6+ ratio seem to help to give a whip effect, this together with iron strings, lend to a specific tone that most like. Having changed the hammers on mine, I had moved the whippen rail to a lower ratio, while using "copies hammer" that where on the medium/high range. The piano touch is then more like a modern touch, as the tone, I would say it allows more possibilities that a whip tone, but the pianist may use its weight and physical relaxation to produce a good tone, while on the original setup, even when played without good touch, the tones remain clear and strong (the piano produce its own tone so much that the pianists have less control on it). Pianists have changed the way they play in the 50' while having instruments more powerful they had also instruments with bigger coloration possibilities. The importance of the weight (arm, shoulder, ) and the use of weight or/& energy of the opening of the ankle is a relatively recent idea in pianist technique learning. I actually look for a standard regulation first, having discovered that only this last allows for a lot of possibilities in tone & in touch, and the largest possibilities given to the pianist. The pianists want most often to have something they can use their own weight against. A too easy piano, even if very predictable, can well lend to uncomforted to them, as of course a too fast and uncontrollable one. Most of the reclamations I had where about not enough weigh, and too easy. Old timers that tend to be lazy sometime (nor me of course !) have understood well the point, and use to regulate with the jack far away , low drop, so that arming moment is exacerbate (while the tone is farther too). I wander something about the assist springs too : As they are less strong when the whippen is at letoff height that when at rest, They can lighten the beginning of the key move, or make heavier the letoff moment, depending of the way they regulate, if the difference is enough. Do someone try to measure the difference of efficiency between these two positions, in grams ? I read the thread with much interest, thanks for that exchange. Best Regards. Isaac OLEG . Z PianoTech 19 rue Jules Ferry 94400 VITRY sur SEINE FRANCE tel : 033 01 47 18 06 98 fax : 033 01 47 18 06 90 cell: 06 60 42 58 77 Too easy to play I had comments that > -----Message d'origine----- > De : pianotech-bounces@ptg.org > [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]De la > part de David Love > Envoyé : vendredi 1 novembre 2002 00:32 > À : Pianotech > Objet : Re: action ratios > > > David S.: > > I appreciate you jumping into the discussion. > > Actually, my stated preference is for 5.75 ratio with > strike weights in the > 1/2 - 3/4 medium range. I find that tonal differences are > better addressed > with different types of hammers than different hammer weights. > > Though feedback from pianists is important, I think one has > to be careful > how it is interpreted. I have had many conflicting reports > from very good > pianists on what they like largely based on what they have > experienced up > until now. If a pianist plays on a 1970's Steinway with an > obvious mismatch > between leverage and strike weight, almost anything will be > an improvement > and should not necessarily be used as a formula to > establish a general rule. > The Steingraeber customer you talk about I am sure loves > his piano and would > change nothing. And I wouldn't dream of changing it under such > circumstances. But I guess my question is, compared to > what? The problem > with all this is that teasing out all of the variables is > almost impossible. > You would need to have two actions that fit into the same > piano, same set of > hammers, with the only difference being those variables in > question. This is > very hard to accomplish. I have recently had a very > accomplished pianist > give me feedback on low ratio high strike weight design > such as you mention > that was very negative both in terms of touch and tone, > that was why I was > called in on it. Though it is easy to simply write all of > this off as > "different strokes" I am not quite satisfied with that. I > am looking for a > default set up that can be easily pushed slightly one way > or the other. I'm > not suggesting that the set up you mention is abnormal, but > it is somewhat > unconventional. I don't dismiss it for that reason alone, > but if we are > going to depart from convention, then I would like more > than a that a few > pianists liked it compared to what they were playing > before. I won't argue > that if a pianist comes to me and says I want top high zone > hammers that I > won't accommodate him, but I wouldn't choose it as a > default setting. > > I will admit that I am skeptical about your reports on > action ratios and > regulation specs. The reason I've chosen 5.75 as a > standard default has > everything to do with regulation. I consider this to be of primary > importance and may differ with you on whether this must > sometimes come at > the expense of tone. I have set up actions down to 5.5 on > occasion, but > lower than that creates problems for me. I can't imagine an action > regulating properly with a ratio of 5.0, even 5.3. Solving > the problem by > adjusting the spread, action center heights simply changes > the overall > ratio. I have played pianos set up with low ratios like > this and have found > that they simply required too much dip, shortened blow or both. A > compromise in the regulation specs can contribute to poor > feel as much as a > mismatch between ratio and strike weight. The piano I > mentioned above which > had a ratio of 5.3 and high zone SW's was regulated at 10mm > dip/44 mm blow. > It was bobbling all over the place. The dip required to > solve the problem > was not acceptable to the pianist. One problem in all this > is actually > determining what the ratio really is. Though I find your metrology > extremely useful, I find that its weakest side is in > determining the action > ratio accurately. I presume this is due to the > unpredictability of friction > in the process of measuring up and down weight on the same > key. Terry F.'s > recent contribution illustrated this point nicely. I find direct > measurement to be the most reliable. I use your system > then to verify by > sampling. > > The point I was trying to make earlier is that your > contribution has been > timely in putting the focus on matching ratio to hammer > weight. The problem > I see is that regulation specs have become a moving target, > acceptable in > any range as long as the ratio/hammer weight criteria was > met. Assuming > that there is a relationship between ratio and regulation > (I have yet to be > shown convincingly otherwise), and assuming that we consider proper > regulation to fall within a relatively narrow range (which > I realize many > don't), then perhaps it is time to reconsider whether a shift in our > priorities at the expense of certain fundamentals is wise. > > We can always make improvements to existing situations that > will thrill our > customers because of what they have had to deal with up > until we made those > changes. But I think it's also important that we don't > mistake their > enthusiasm for our discovery of the holy grail. We're > supposed to know > better. > > > David Love > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David C. Stanwood" <Stanwood@tiac.net> > To: <pianotech@ptg.org> > Sent: October 31, 2002 5:24 AM > Subject: Re: action ratios > > > Dear Pianotech, > > Just some comments on the great discussion that was > stimulated by "patent > notice". > > David Love states his preference for 6.0 ratio with 1/2 > medium StrikeWt. > Stephen > Birkett describes a Cristofori with a 10.0 ratio and, > compared with today's > standards, > an almost weightless hammer, (what's the blow/dip?). I'll > state my generic > preference > for a 5.3 ratio with 1/2 high StrikeWt and wippen support > springs working > about 11 grams. > What's great here is that we are talking about matching > hammer weight with > action ratio > as a means for describing action quality. It's called > Touch Designing and > I'm very happy > to see the discussion progress beyond mere down weight > which has nothing > really to do with > the actual force it takes to move a key at playing speeds. > > David Love Wed, 2 Oct 2002 Writes: > > >The practice of putting heavier hammers on a concert > instrument comes > >from the idea that more mass will produce greater force > and therefore > >greater volume of tone. > > In my case the use of high zone hammers comes from pianist > feedback, not > theoretical ideas. At first I pursued light hammers but > listening to > pianists has brought me to explore higher weights. I'd > also like to say > that high zone is not abnormal, it's within the normal > zone. We just > measured > a Steingraeber medium sized grand with upper high zone > strike weights and > in the upper melodic section they were above TopHigh. This > piano sounds > absolutely beautiful at all dynamic ranges. You won't > convince the owner > that there is anything wrong with his hammer weight. > Steingraeber is one of > the > finest pianos made. There are countless examples of pianos > with high zone > hammer weights in the world that have absolutely beautiful > tone there are > some really bad sounding ones too and there are some really > good or bad > sounding pianos with 1/2 medium zone hammer weights. High > zone hammers > are not Abnormal. > > If 6.0 ratio with 1/2 medium strikewt works for David Love > he should pursue > that. There are pianists who will like that style of > design. I find that > ratios closer to 5.3 with high zone strikewts work well for > my clients. > What's important is that we are talking about hammer weight > and ratio. This > discussion was missing in the past. It's great! > > I don't impose personal bias on the hammer weights I choose > for Precision > TouchDesigns that I provide for my consulting group. I'm > simply getting > feedback from a group of fine technicians that now numbers > 58 and they are > listening to the pianists. It's the feedback that I listen > too and base > my touch design decisions on a lot of qualitative input. > I'm happy to share > it. > > I'd like to relate a real world experience that I had a few > years ago. > Serge Harel, > in Quebec City asked me to create a design for a TopHigh > zone strike weight > on a > Steinway D concert grand. I called him up and said "Serge, > I've never > designed a > hammer weight so high. Are you sure?" His response was > "David, I tested > the hammer > weights in the piano and for these hammers with this piano, > TopHigh sounds > best". > So I designed an action with TopHigh StrikeWt, 5.0 ratio, > and full 88 note > wippen > support springs. The piano was shown at the NE Regional > Seminar and it was > a huge > success. It plays beautifully at ALL dynamic levels... > Loyd Meyer called > it the > "Magic Piano". TopHigh StrikeWts have a place in the piano world. > > It has also been intimated that ratios as low as 5.5 will > cause problems > with > shortened blow. This is simply not always true. Hamburg > Steinways all > average > 5.5 ratios and they are one of the highest standards of > quality in modern > pianos. > We have examples of pianos with 5.0 ratios that work with 44.5mm > blow/10.0mm dip. > We have other examples of 5.0 ratio actions that work with > a 44.5mm blow > but require > an 11.0mm dip. What's the difference? We find that > changing things like > action center > heights, spread, hammer bore, knuckle radii, and the magic > line can improve > the > efficiency of the geometry. > > I've come to measure action efficiency by comparing weight > ratios with > distance ratios. > In the above example the action with a 5.0 ratio/44.5mm > blow/11.0mm dip is > not very > efficient. The action with a 5.0 ratio/44.5mm blow/10.0mm > dip is very > efficient. > > What I teach in my consulting group is to find that best > weight hammer for > the piano > then I design the action ratio around that weight. If the > desired weight > is 1/2 > medium zone, I would specify 6.0 ratio. If it's a TopMedium I would > specify a 5.5 ratio. > If the best tone comes from a TopMedium strikewt but the > ratio is 6.0 then > the ratio > has to be changed to match the hammer weight and this is > done by changing > the capstan > line. When I hear "Experts" say things like "Never move a > capstan line" > It really > irks me. Moving a capstan line can lead to huge > improvements in certain > cases. > We need to develop the skills of knowing when it is > appropriate and what > the limits > are. > > It's all about balancing the hammer weight and action ratio > so it feels > comfortable. > Not too light or too heavy unless the customer specifically asks for > that.... > > Matching hammer weight with ratio is a skill we need to > develop in our > trade. > > David Stanwood > > > Hammer Weight Rating curves available freely at: > > http://www.stanwoodpiano.com/touchweight.htm > > "When I find an action that is comfortable, the tone is usually too > thin because the hammers are smaller, and so the sound is > smaller, too." > Alicia de Larrocha > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC