[pianotech] Stiff WNG? (was Steinway top)

[Delwin D Fandrich]

Plastic bushings are less compliant than felt bushings. 

 

All parts of the piano action have some "give" to them. The most obvious
being the flex of the key. The second being the flex of the hammershank.
Following these it becomes more difficult to measure just how much the
"give," or flex, of each component is contributing to the overall saturation
of the action. The capstan felt has some give to it. The wippen body has
some amount of flex. The action rails have give to them-Steinway rails tend
to rotate-etc. Felt action centers are also in there. Felt bushings have
some amount of compliance. Primarily the jack center and the hammershank
center. 

 

I'm not sure I worded my point in the best way. All piano actions exhibit
the phenomena of action saturation. At issue is the point, in terms of
hammer velocity vs. key velocity, that you reach that point. And what the
hammer velocity will be at that point. In some actions-an action with a lot
of flex and compliance in it-action saturation occurs relatively early,
others-actions with stiff keys, hard felts and leathers, etc.-it comes on
some later; with at harder, faster keystroke. Up to a point you'd like to
transmit as much energy through the key as fast as possible and accelerate
the hammer as much as possible. 

 

I've not tried setting up my equipment to actually measure the difference in
compliance between the traditional wood/felt action components and the new
WN&G components-I'm not sure I even still have everything. But my sense is
that energy transfer from the capstan to the hammershank is more efficient
and more immediate. At least that is how it feels to me. This means, in
theory at least, that energy put into the key is more efficiently
transferred through the system and the actual point of action saturation
will come with a somewhat harder, faster keystrike. The pianist seems to
have just a bit more "control" over the relationship between the key end and
the hammer motion. One pianist-and this on a piano with a low-tension scale
and relatively light hammers-described it as being more "intimate." 

 

As to whether this reduction in compliance is a good thing or not depends, I
suppose, on your perspective.

 

ddf 

 

Delwin D Fandrich

Piano Design & Fabrication

6939 Foothill Court SW, Olympia, Washington 98512 USA

Phone  360.515.0119 - Cell  360.388.6525

 <mailto:del at fandrichpiano.com> del at fandrichpiano.com -
<mailto:ddfandrich at gmail.com> ddfandrich at gmail.com

 

From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of David Love
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 7:33 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Stiff WNG? (was Steinway top)

 

Why would a non felt bushing lower the action saturation point and why is a
lower action saturation point more desirable?  

 

I thought action saturation had to do with the relative flexibility of the
levers (shank or key) that can result in an inability to accelerate the
hammer beyond a certain point due to excessive flexing.  So unless I'm
thinking of this backwards I thought a lower action saturation point was a
potential problem as characterized by accelerated actions without the shoe
where the key lacks adequate stiffness.  

 

Re Joe's point, how do the carbon fiber shanks compare in terms of
flexibility to, say, a traditional Steinway 3/16" shank?  With light hammers
some people do complain about the Renner hex shanks because of excessive
stiffness and therefore a lack of feel.  The action saturation point, as I
view it, would be lower with the 3/16" shanks (when compared to the 7/16"
hex shanks) because they are more flexible but one might have greater feel
of the hammer especially if the hammers were very light in weight.  

 

David Love

www.davidlovepianos.com

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20111004/a7177989/attachment-0004.htm>