Heavy Hammers / High Ratio / Ric

[Richard Brekne]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment


Delwin D Fandrich wrote:

>
>
>      And doesnt the stored energy in compliance flex have to be
>      released some how regardless... doesnt some of this end up
>      coming out on the hammer / string impact end of the
>      <<equation>> ?
>
> Yes it does ... and, no it doesn't. Once the action saturation point
> has been reached the excess energy is released after the hammer has
> struck the strings and has rebounded to check. After that it no longer
> matters how much energy is stored in the key and action mechanism.
>
>

We know that none, or no significant amount, gets released at impact,
before rebound has a chance to get the hammer off the string ?


>      Then... action saturation.... when is too early ?? or is
>      there such a thing as too early  or too late saturation ?...
>
> I'd say it is too early any time the key bottoms out before the hammer
> strikes the string(s) under "normal" playing conditions.
>
I suppose this is a good point to start with anyways. Probably rather
easy to find a rough measurement for this.


> I'll leave the pounder trying desperately to destroy the piano with a
> great and marvelous display of his or her great virtuosity and utter
> lack of musicality out of the discussion. But even with normal playing
> some lag between the key motion and the hammer motion is inevitable
> with any mechanical action made up of compliant materials and springy
> levers. Only by reducing the compliance and/or bendability of the
> various components you can delay action saturation. But by doing so
> you also make it harder on the hands and arms of the pianist.
>
Yes.... leaving the musicality bit out of the discussion for a
moment...  perhaps certain degree of action compliance relative to any
given hammer mass is desirable ?...

>
>
> Del

The reason Im asking is one August Forster grand I have at the
University. Students just love this thing,,, yet it is the biggest piece
of junk we have. It has a high ratio figure 6.3 on the Stanwood scale,
(that would be higher on all other scales I am aware of) It has
reasonably heavy hammers, Strike Weights starting at 12.4 and ending at
5.8.  Relatively low levels of key leads. FW's start at 30 grams and end
up around 0 . Very heavily adjusted assist springs and low levels of
friction.

I get the same comment over and over from students... its heavy... but
in a good way. I have a few instruments to compare that have very
different configurations... in particular our Stanwoodized Steinway that
has a bit heavier hammers, a much lower ratio, no assist springs  and
same BW.  They prefer the "feel" of the Forster.

So I'm just trying to get a better understanding of why this could be.
Which facets of the action that influence directly how its touch is
percieved can be responsible.

Thanks.

RicB

--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
UiB, Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/89/14/ab/17/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--