---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Andre - Your analysis is interesting, but I'm not sure without flaw, though it may= =20 be that I'm not understanding you entirely. Before anything else, it should be understood that, within the realm of=20 mechanical rationality and effectiveness, there is a range of what is=20 acceptable, or preferred, by pianists, whether professional or=20 otherwise. Second, I would prefer to sidestep the issue of tonal effect,=20 for the time being, as any experiment to evaluate such claims should be as= =20 controlled as possible, and also, I still haven't read the article. What=20 remains then are the issues of precision, tactile response, and=20 consistency. I have no doubt, both logically and from my own experience=20 with these punchings, that establishing a consistent key dip is easier than= =20 with softer, woven punchings. The sense of termination is more=20 defined. There is a minimum amount of perceived compression at the end of= =20 the keystroke. I would assume that, certainly in the earlier stages,=20 these punchings would deform less than the woven variety, in general,=20 though I've seen examples of the latter that I thought to be too hard to=20 use. I suspect that the long term deformation issue is, as you suggest,=20 not a real concern, for the reasons you indicate. So, what about this question of soft or hard landings? Frankly, I question= =20 your analysis of aftertouch. Aftertouch does not mean "after the work has= =20 been done". Even apart from tactile expectations of the pianist, or the=20 need for a "real-world" safety margin, there is a degree of jack movement,= =20 past where the hammer drops, that is necessary for the action to function=20 properly. In response to your comments, I performed an experiment which I= =20 found revealing. While not necessary for the experiment, I measured up and down weight of a= =20 sample note and calculated friction, which, in this case happened to be 6=20 grams (not my usual). I then determined the gram weight required to just move the jack through=20 escapement from a static key, positioned at jack / let off button=20 contact. This happened to be 120 grams. Using a very firm light green punching (I ran out of Wurzen's) I built up=20 the front punching height until I found the point where the difference=20 between the key moving through escapement or not was one white punching=20 (.08mm / .0035"). From that point, I removed paper punchings until I achieved what, to me,=20 felt like the traditional 'American'(?) amount of aftertouch. I measured the extracted paper punchings and got: .76mm / .030". This also seemed very close to what was necessary to allow the jack to=20 stand clear of the descending knuckle. With less aftertouch, the knuckle=20 would have to work to push back the jack (against a spring) on its way to=20 check the hammer, losing some momentum in the process. On a soft blow,=20 this could make the difference between a captured hammer and one which=20 bounces back. I suppose you could make a case for the idea of trading aftertouch for=20 power. Assuming a given key dip, the less taken up by aftertouch, the more= =20 travel/time is available to drive the hammer from further away or to closer= =20 to the string. On the other hand, since, to reduce aftertouch you have to= =20 either increase blow or decrease key dip, such a revised dip dimension=20 might feel considerably disconcerting to the pianist. Which takes you to=20 the physiological component...what the pianist feels and what he/she=20 expects to feel. Would you suppose there is such a thing as=20 "finger-followthru", similar to follow through in most athletic=20 motions? Maybe sometimes, the tactile feel is more critical than speed or= =20 power. Maybe, as with voicing, the repertoire acts as a determinant. >If someone prefers a more, as you say, "cushioned stop", then that person= =20 >should allow for some more after touch. >The surplus of after touch is actually a waste of energy and a waste of= time. >The more waste, the more that feeling of "cushioned stop". >Capisce? You seem to indicate a clear bias in favor of the firm landing over a=20 softer one, and this, based upon the power-inefficiency inherent in the=20 softer one. Nevertheless, if the pianist prefers the softer feel, would=20 you expect to find a difference whether that sensation is achieved by=20 modulating the punching density as opposed to increasing aftertouch? Perhaps someone could clarify the difference in what David Stanwood refers= =20 to as "pressed "felt, and your description of the Wurzen. As I understand= =20 it, pressure is part of the felting process. I really must read your article. Maybe you and Stanwood could meet, maybe the Hauge, and work this out. Regards - David Skolnik At 08:30 PM 5/7/2005 +0200, you wrote: >On 7-mei-05, at 19:34, David Love wrote: > >>Why would more aftertouch create a more cushioned stop? I do have some >>customers who prefer a very soft feel at the bottom of the stroke in >>spite of the fact that it creates greater difficulty in regulating the >>dip as a very delicate touch is required to determine just exactly where >>the "bottom" of the stroke is. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons: >>arthritis to personal preference, there have been times when customers >>have preferred a much thicker woven punching to a thinner and firmer >>one. I don't think greater aftertouch would have accomplished the same >>thing. >> >>David Love >>davidlovepianos@comcast.net > >With all due respect David.... >As I said before : more aftertouch is a waste of energy and time. >Why? >Because aftertouch is a movement AFTER all 'the work' has been done. >What is 'the work'? >It is the mechanical work an action has to perform in order to cause a=20 >piano hammer to go up, hit the string(s) and come to a rest in the back= check. >meanwhile, we hope that the jack did escape from under the knuckle without= =20 >causing any trouble for the work the hammer had to do. >If all that has been accomplished, 'the work' has been done. > >Aftertouch comes after the work. It literally means that you do some work= =20 >for nothing. >Why would one do want to do something for nothing? >Because it is safer to have at least a tiny surplus of movement because=20 >many actions have problems more or less. >Problems 'more or less' can be caused by a multitude of reasons, which=20 >most often can be combined in three conceptions : worn parts, bad=20 >regulation, friction. >If this "work for nothing" is incorporated in 'the work', the mechanical=20 >way, it always causes a more or less softer touch, caused by loss of=20 >energy, caused by : worn parts, bad regulation, friction. >Actually, aftertouch is bad regulation, because it is a loss of energy,=20 >and thus time. >But it is necessary, because an action regulated too sharply, is highly=20 >dependent on the newness of the action parts, the regulation of the=20 >action, and friction within keyboard and action. >Because most actions (generally speaking) are so so so regulated, always=20 >have friction, and usually are not new, a minor aftertouch is necessary to= =20 >compensate for these. > >A very small aftertouch is called a 'hard landing'. >It means that a very small part of the 'action', 'the works' is wasted. >It also means that all the movements of keyboard and action combined are=20 >translated into the finger of the technician/pianist as working very=20 >directly, and thus very efficiently. >Usually a hard landing is translated in an aftertouch of between 0 and 0,5= =20 >mm. >Many pianists prefer this 'hard landing' because the action feels very=20 >precise, and that means that the pianist gets the impression of a fast and= =20 >precise working action. >In other words : the pianist feels that he/she plays on a very sharp and=20 >trustworthy piano. >The technician though, has to re-regulate this instrument after every=20 >concert. > >A medium aftertouch is a little safer for the pianist and for the=20 >technician, because of the slightly bigger aftertouch. >A medium aftertouch is typically 0,5 mm and is called 'medium landing' >It means literally that after the mechanical work has been done (including= =20 >bad regulation and friction) there is always that small surplus of=20 >mechanical 'safety', meaning that the jack has a little more space to come= =20 >out from under the knuckle, so that the hammer will not bounce back on the= =20 >jack. >This extra movement, this waste, will however cause for a softer feeling. > >A big aftertouch is called a 'soft landing'. >It only means even more mechanical 'surplus', mechanical 'waste' and is=20 >translated in an aftertouch of 1 mm or more. >I can not imagine why any pianist wants a soft landing, but they are there. >We have a saying : "customer is king". >If the customer wants a soft landing, we'll let him/her have it (as long=20 >as they pay). >A soft landing is the ultimate waste of mechanical energy and time. >Why time? because the movement in the action is delayed. >This delay causes the feeling of more softness. >The more aftertouch, the more softness. > >You still don't believe it? >Try it out for yourself. > >EAR > >friendly greetings >from >Andr=E9 Oorebeek > >www.concertpianoservice.nl > >"Where music is no harm can be" > > > ></blockquote></x-html> ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/31/53/ef/29/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC