[CAUT] Lighter Touchweight

[David Love]

Chris:

Yes.  When topics like this are posted there is a presumption of expertise
that can be dangerous and I admit this may be a mistake on my part.
However, many of the options proposed are very dubious, in my view, and
should be able to be addressed through a careful analysis and questioning of
the pianist.  But it does require some very specific knowledge.  Raising the
hammer line is probably a good thing to do in this case in order to try and
tease out some of the other variables.  It's fast, won't cost much and is
easily reversible.  It will, in fact, reduce the touchweight, or at least
the friction at the beginning of the key stroke by placing the rotation more
immediately on the vertical than the horizontal.  If there is already
adequate aftertouch it will make that excessive and raising the hammers too
high off the rest cushion can have negative effects on repetition (though I
think that piano has an adjustable strip).  So I don't have a problem with
that at least as an interim move.  Where I have a problem is with
suggestions about making the piano brighter, drilling holes in wippens,
changing damper timing (unless it really is picking up way too early) and
similar approaches that are time consuming and costly relative to their
chance for success.  The customer may not want the piano brighter, drilling
holes in wippens is very time consuming and really doesn't accomplish
anything significant, and changing the damper timing is only relevant when
playing without the pedal and alters control of legato playing due to
earlier shutoff on release--not a good trade-off in my view.  

Neither would I presume that just because 52down/30up is something that many
of us would "kill for" that it isn't something that is too heavy for this
particular pianist.  This week I am going to assess a touchweight complaint
(too heavy) after the current technician told the customer "It's fine,
that's the way it's supposed to be".  It may be, but she doesn't like it and
I have a new customer.  And after this posting I'm on my way to a very good
concert level pianist who has a D and for whom I modified the action to
achieve her own personal goal of 26 BW, yes that's 36 down and 16 up +/-.
It wasn't easy to accept that was what she really wanted and harder yet to
achieve that in a way that didn't compromise other aspects of performance,
but she loves it.  What should I say, "that's not how it's supposed to be"?


While customers are sometimes mistaken in their perceptions and similarly
mistaken in their description of problems (how many ways can you spell
"sticking keys"), they are often right in what they want for themselves and
we are usually better off listening than imposing our own sense of how
things should be or making random guesses about what they "really" mean or
what's likely to fool them.  

So in this case, if experiments need to be done in order to determine just
what they want, I would certainly argue for the most expedient and least
cost methods that are easily reversible and don't substitute one problem for
another.  If the original poster lacks the expertise to really get to the
heart of the matter by careful questioning and analysis, then the best thing
to do might be to employ someone who is and who can get it right with the
minimum number of false starts.  

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 Chris
Solliday
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:49 AM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Lighter Touchweight

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
>
>