[CAUT] Erard

[Israel Stein]

At 11:00 AM 5/31/2006, Ed Foote wrote:
>Again I wrote:
> >  if you want to reduce the aftertouch to
> >a minumum, (which will be the fastest action), lower your hammers or raise
> >your keydip, or a little of both.  You may then want to set your
> >let-off to just
> >below the lower excursion limit of the string when the string has 
> been struck
> >as firmly as the performer is likely to play it.
>
>Israel responds:
> >>Not on an old Erard. Too risky. You need a large safety factor. That
>all-wood action is not so rigid that you can do hair-trigger regulations.
>
>       When I say reducing the aftertouch to a minimum, I am not suggesting
>any particular dimension, simply an approach which takes the 
>particular action
>into consideration.

My comment, Ed, refers to your treatment of letoff - not aftertouch. 
I have no argument with what you say about aftertouch. But on a 
wooden-bracketed 120-year-old action which is not dimensionally 
stable, this approach to letoff is way too risky. The dimensional 
instability of the action should really be taken into consideration 
when deciding how fussy one should get over the regulation and how 
"refined" it should be.

And, by the way, what you wrote in general is the most elegant, 
succinct and comprehensible statement of the principles of action 
regulation "as it ought to be done" I have seen anywhere. I might 
have a spot for it in a supplement to one of the PTG publications 
that I'm currently working on. May I use it (with minor editing - and 
attribution, of course?)

>     I have only regulated two of these Erards, and there was no 
> problem with s
>etting let-off to these specifications.  One of them was used by a Chopin
>fanatic, who likes to play hard.  We have had no problems.

Ironic. Chopin preferred Pleyels. Brahms owned an Erard....

>
> > Springs should be as strong as
> >possible without being felt in the key upon hammer release.
>
> >>That's 120 year old springs we are talking about - not much zing
>left... I doubt you'll be able to make the key "kick". Sometimes you
>are lucky to get any kind of lift on the hammer at all - I've had to
>settle for the hammer not dropping back... <<
>
>         Yes, "as strong as possible" might mean simply holding the hammer in
>place, but that wasn't the case I had to deal with.  The actions worked fine
>with a slow gradual rise to the spring. One of them had very little hammer
>left, and there was certainly a feeling in the key when they were 
>released when
>the springs were too strong.  The age of a spring doesn't 
>necessarily reduce its
>capacity to "spring".  It may break, but if it is intact, I have always been
>able to strengthen them sufficiently to raise the hammers.

My experience and my butt beg to differ. If you ever rode in a pickup 
truck with worn-out springs (not shocks - springs) you'll know what 
I'm talking about. If a spring can lose its ability to absorb force, 
it can also lose its ability to generate force. And, in fact, I came 
across springs in old Erards (and in other old beasts) that were 
perfectly intact - and perfectly limp no matter how you stroked them 
or opened them or bent them. Best they could do was support the 
weight of the hammer in place - never mind raise it.

And I think Wim reached the right conclusion. To tackle one of these 
actions, a technician needs to be perfectly fluent in the principles 
of regulation as stated by Ed in his message - and be confident 
enough to be able to fudge them and transgress them as required by 
the quirks of the aged mechanism...

Israel Stein