[CAUT] Lighter Touchweight

[Chris Solliday]

I couldn't disagree with what you have said.
Chris Solliday
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>
To: "'College and University Technicians'" <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Lighter Touchweight


> 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
> >
> >
>