Low Inertia

[Fenton Murray]

Ron,
I think key lead does have a significant effect on feel. That's what I 
learned the hard way.
I actually thought at one point that extra lead might over come friction in 
the key. I watched keys with friction move easily with my weights on the 
front and a clip on on the rear. I saw these actions with assist springs and 
like one or two leads in the bass going to none and even back leading before 
the springs were discontinued in octave 5 or what ever it was. So I 
disconected the springs and started leading, bad idea. I guess I made that 
point awhile back, I'll get off.
Great post by Jim I. below. It sounds like you're already a serious study of 
this technology, so I'm not going to go on about how you should set up an 
action. But if your listening. From what your discribing I'm wondering if 
you've played a lot of digital keyboards and if you like them. I have, which 
is why I ask. Sounds like that may be a little of where your coming from. Or 
not.
Fenton
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <jimialeggio5 at comcast.net>
To: <pianotech at ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:36 PM
Subject: Low Inertia


> List,
>
>>... the excess lead wouldn't be in the keys in the
>>first place unless the hammer weight is too heavy for the
>>action ratio. I don't think key lead has a lot to do with down
>>stroke inertial feel.
>>
>>My take,
>>Ron N
>
> Hmm...
>
> I've been following the recent inertia thread as well as a "hammer weight
> reduction" thread from a couple of weeks ago with great interest.
>
> I think I would like to widen this out a bit. Hammer weight is one of the
> major weight variables we have some control over, but the amount that 
> hammer
> weight management is controlled and/or limited by the geometry interests 
> me.
>
>
> As a pianist coming to tech-hood as  a second career, there were two 
> artistic
> reasons for my career shift. One huge reason was my unrelieved 
> frustration with
> the unyielding feel of almost all of
> the grand actions I had played, and the other (which I now see
> as an essential part of the "feel" of the action), the amount of
> non-fundamental noise generated by poorly responding belly systems.
>
> In trying to understand  what frustrates me about grand actions, I have
> navigated various action balancing protocols, spoke with techs proficient 
> in
> their particular protocols, listened to their explanations and played 
> their
> rebuilt actions.
>
> I'm afraid I haven't endeared myself to some of these fine techs, because,
> though thoughtfully, skillfully and lovingly executed, most of the 
> protocols
> left my fingers with the same frustration, ie, the amount of energy needed 
> to
> move the action dictated how I interpreted my music...the piano's 
> engineering
> challenged and somewhat overruled my artistic vision...this is not 
> acceptable to
> me.
>
> In the various weight balancing protocols, for example the Stanwood, much 
> effort
> is spent balancing out the response of the action, but, as my fingers
> perceive it, the balancing effects are micro effects...an improvement, but 
> an
> improvement which, alas, leaves my biggest complaint, a huge global 
> complaint,
> unaddressed, ie  I feel that most actions I have played possess a  high or
> "higher-than-I-would-like" dynamic touch weight (hdtw).
>
> Geometry and weight are so interrelated, it is somewhat challenging
> to differentiate between the effects of the two; the effects of each have 
> the
> ability to magnify and mimic each other.
>
> I read the symptom of HDTW as high or uncontrolled inertia, and is 
> evidenced by
> the relative quantity of lead needed to achieve customary static down 
> weights.
> (My fingers would like to see leads in the low base way down around 1.5 or 
> 2,
> and low friction values: an uncommon scenario, I think.)
>
> Hammer weight is involved, but often, the levers are just not functioning 
> in an
> optimized fashion...yes, we got it to regulate, but the
> the geometry is still sometimes quite marginal. To my mind and fingers, 
> all the
> careful balancing of each of the levers will only take you so 
> far...geometry,
> that is geometry that pays attention to the location of the balance rail 
> x,y
> either optimizes or
> hinders the proceedings...
>
> My thanks to Bruce Clark who is speaking about these issues in a way that 
> fits
> my point of view. He generously took a group of us,  through a protracted 
> series
> of mind bending Saturdays to explain how to
> actually understand and achieve balanced geometry at half stroke...
>
> ...challenged my cognitive facilities, it did. My work now reflects this
> redesign work. (it does require high end customers)
>
> Geometry that is actually, precisely at the half stroke for whites and 
> pretty
> close for sharps, in concert with appropriate hammer weights, gets me the 
> feel I
> want.
>
> What's interesting to me is, that in a low inertia action, since my global
> complaint has been addressed, I'm really not bothered by slight unevenness 
> key
> to key, and don't fuss with it. (however, the rest of the redesign is 
> plenty
> fussy...no escaping
> the fuss factor)
>
> As a disclaimer I should say that I am aware that the accepted "feel" 
> which
> most pianists learned on, and therefore look for and expect in an action, 
> is
> higher in dynamic touch weight than what I'm looking for...and that 
> although I
> interpret this as undesirable, many if not most pianists experience it as 
> a
> positive.
>
> Maybe low inertia actions are a bit out of the norm...or depending on
> how you see it, maybe just ahead of the cusp.
>
> Since its a diverse world out there, I would really like to see discussion 
> out
> there which can accommodate different ways of interpreting what 
> constitutes a
> "good" action feel. What feels good quite possibly can change with 
> differing
> musical and body styles.
>
> Now to incorporate this work together with a proper RC&S belly .
>
> Jim
>
> --
> Jim Ialeggio
> www.grandpianosolutions.com (under construction)
> Shirley, MA (978) 425-9026
>
>