[CAUT] Lighter Touchweight

[Chris Solliday]

David,
It could just be that because this action is just "new" and "crisp" and
snappy (30 up) and was different before or his piano at home is worn out and
light to begin with that this man SAYS it feels heavier. Who knows what
these guys mean on a cursory run over of the piano. I agree with you David,
one should know alot more before proceeding. Although I don't think there is
any harm in reducing blow distance slightly and thereby increasing
aftertouch slightly to see if it makes a difference in this guy's
perception. Something that is easily reversible is a good way to find out
more about what someone means in a short amount of time in my experience.
But to be sure we really need more info here to give accurate suggestions.
Since we are dealing with someone who is unable to provide much more, the
"old tricks" maybe his only avenue of reality.
Chris Solliday
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>
To: "'College and University Technicians'" <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Lighter Touchweight


> All these things should indeed be checked out.  However, I'm seeing a
> tendency in this thread to address the customer complaint of too heavy an
> action by pursuing certain perceptual tricks (adding dip, making the piano
> brighter, etc.) which may end up to be chasing the untamed ornithoid, as
it
> were.  Granted, there is not quite enough information in the original post
> to make a real diagnosis, but assuming the voicing is where they want it,
> the regulation is correct for that action (increasing the dip may result
in
> excess aftertouch and increasing the blow distance to compensate will only
> increase the resistance at the outset of the keystroke), and damper timing
> is correct (which they can also test by seeing if the action still feels
> heavy when they play with the sustain pedal engaged), then it just might
be
> that the problem is as the customer reports--the action is too heavy for
> them.  If that's the case, then the choices are 1.) add lead if the front
> weights are not already too high so as to adversely affect inertia--though
> reducing the DW by four grams means a small lead about halfway between the
> balance rail and key front which is not likely to adversely impact
> inertia--and assuming, as it sounds, that there is adequate upweight. 2.)
> Take weight off the hammers but the amount of weight needed to be removed
> will affect the tone and is probably too much and too sloppy a way to go
> anyway. 3.) Adjust the leverage which will lower the touchweight, have the
> benefit of increasing the dip without increasing the blow distance, allow
> you to possibly remove lead which will lower the inertia and possibly (in
my
> experience with those pianos) put the capstan/wippen flange center line in
a
> better place.
>
> Some more in depth analysis and questions to the customer are in order, to
> be sure, but I would be cautious about wasting the customer's time and
money
> by assuming that they can be tricked into thinking the action is lighter
by
> pursuing some more obscure avenue to address the problem.  While that may
> work once in awhile, my experience says that when a customer says the
action
> is too heavy and the piano is otherwise in good order, most of the time,
> it's too heavy--at least for them.  The danger in going this other route
is
> that you may end up with a piano that is still heavy but now is too bright
> and poorly regulated on top of it.
>
> Getting to the heart of the matter can usually be done with some in depth
> questions and discussion with the customer combined with some accurate
> measurements which will better outline what exists as well as the
available
> options.
>
> David Love
> davidlovepianos at comcast.net
> www.davidlovepianos.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
James
> Ellis
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:14 AM
> To: caut at ptg.org
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Lighter Touchweight
>
> I have been reading the mail, reluctant to weigh in, but now I will.
>
> Jeff, the static measurements you mention look good to me, and you say the
> friction is low.  I would be very slow about making any drastic changes
> like moving capstans, or anything like that.  Don Mannino and Alan McCoy
> make some good points.  Ric Brekne is correct too when he says your window
> for damper lift timing is narrow.  But if damper lift is significantly too
> early, that will contribute to the heavy feel, especially if the upstop
> rail to too high, and the pianist feels the damper rebound on the keys.
> Tight damper guide bushings and tight underlevers will also contribute.
>
> What is too often not understood is that two different parameters are at
> play here - "static" and "dynamic".  Static has to do with those key
weight
> measurements.  Dynamic has to do with the inertia in the whole system.
The
> two are related, but not the same thing by any means.
>
> In this particular case, if you lighten the down-weight very much, you may
> be in trouble with insufficient up-weight, and you may not be addressing
> the actual problem either.
>
> I'm not sure there is a problem.  It just may be that the pianist wants
> something that is not proctical to provide, without giving up something
> else he wants to keep.
>
> Sincerely, Jim Ellis
>
>