Sorry, got interrupted in the third paragraph and produced an incoherent
sentence. Correction below in red (HTML).
David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David
Love
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 7:40 AM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] F..riction
Using what pianists complain about as a guide as to the standards we set
probably dangerous as most pianists don't complain enough about what's wrong
with their pianos. Perhaps that comes from countless hours spent on ill
maintained practice room pianos or the lack of means to be able to maintain
their own pianos to some high level but I'm often shocked at what pianists
will tolerate. Most pianists simply want uniformity and predictability in
the action and are happy to get that. That they will tolerate variations in
action parameters, however, shouldn't necessarily be read as a license to
explore those boundaries with impunity. But that's another issue I suppose.
I think there are a couple of issues with flange friction that is too low.
The issue I'm referring to is the loss of connection that can occur after
the key stroke is initiated. While many pianists will consider it a non
issue (some may even prefer it) or not notice it in the general milieu of
action events, I've had some who feel that this loss of connection
compromises their control and when I've taken to repining the action with
slightly elevated levels of friction in the flange they find it to be a
noticeable improvement. Pinning up to 6 grams of friction would be an
overreaction and likely create a problem in the opposite direction and I
wouldn't advocate that or suggest that low levels of friction might not even
be preferable to high levels. Fortunately those aren't the only two
choices. The second issue with low friction levels can occur with the
repetition spring tension. Low levels of friction in the flange force us to
set repetition spring tensions lower and that can compromise jack return and
repetition speed. While you can compensate for that by setting the friction
higher in the balancier it's not always a practical solution.
With respect to David Stanwood's comments, first, I've noticed a trend with
many of those using Stanwood protocols to be employing very low levels of
friction in the flanges by design. It's more of an observation and I can't
testify to the STD official recommendations. I think you may be right that
lower levels of friction will reveal unevenness in the strike weight curve,
sort of. It makes sense in scale passage work but makes less sense when you
consider how the piano is played generally which is with non contiguous
groups of notes that therefore have non uniform strike weights. It prompts
a discussion about just what does the pianist actually feel when it comes to
predictability of action response. If they are playing a series of voiced
chords in both hands where the range of strike weights can be several grams
between them, the balance weight uniform but the up and down weights varying
due to slight changes in friction through the scale will that be reported as
less or more even than an action that has an increasing balance weight from
bass to treble with uniform down weight and gradually increasing levels of
friction or will they pianist prefer an action that has friction settings
that are lower in the bass than in the treble so that a uniform balance
weight produces uniform up and down weight through the scale? Those outline
three possible ways (and I suppose there are others as well) to set up the
action, each with its own compromise. The reality is that the pianists will
probably report that each one of those actions is even suggesting that
pianists simply adapt to what is there. That doesn't absolve us, however,
of having to make a choice and target something which has some sense of
uniformity or escape the fact that some pianists will probably prefer one
system over another. Throw in the choice to be made between high strike
weights with low leverage and low friction versus lower strike weights with
higher leverage and higher levels of friction and there are many things to
consider. The question of which one, therefore, is not completely academic
as Horace has suggested but in fact something that needs to be considered
when setting up an action if we are being thorough. Will pianists
appreciate the painstaking process we put ourselves through to design and
execute or prefer the design we've chosen? The truth is they'll probably
appreciate whatever we do, but that shouldn't prevent us from exploring just
which standard to set.
David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Fred
Sturm
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:08 PM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] F..riction
On Nov 29, 2010, at 3:45 PM, David Love wrote:
It's interesting to note the new trend on S/F resistance to very low levels
in the neighborhood of 0-1 grams. This trend seems to have latched onto the
Stanwood protocols in order to make the action feel even more facile.
Personally, I think it's a mistake and while it does give a first impression
of a very friendly and resistance free action the down side (for many,
though not all) is an accompanying lack of control of both tone and touch.
Yes, it is interesting. I was very skeptical at first, but my
own experience has shown that for me and most of the pianists I deal with,
it is a non-issue. I guess I have to modify by saying that this applies with
pretty tight regulation parameters and pretty reasonable voicing, as that is
where my experience lies. If the piano is quite brightly voiced, more
friction might (but only might) make it more controllable.
Intellectually I share the notion that a certain degree of
friction in the various flanges is necessary, but so far experience isn't
bearing this out in dealing with the current Steinway perma-free design,
where, yes, 0-1 gm is the norm (however, it is possible to have even less
friction than that, where you can get the flange itself to swing, and this
IS a problem that must be dealt with - ie, there are limits). Not to say
that there aren't clients who like a stiffer action with possibly more
friction, but it is hard to parse between weight and friction in these cases
as a rule.
[aside: I have been reading Hipkins recently (1896 book,
available on line at archive.org), and interestingly he comments that many
pianists (of his time) think they should practice on heavy actions. But he
points out that the best and most powerful pianists of his time, including
Liszt and Anton Rubenstein, had grown up playing very light Viennese
actions.]
I find too little friction and too little weight easier to deal
with than too much, as a pianist. The feel of too much rep spring strength
(compensating for friction in the lever pinning) coupled by somewhat low
drop is particularly annoying and problematic. It gets in the way of facile
light figuration, especially. Certainly pinning those reps heavy makes it
easy from the technician's point of view, to set springs so the hammer rises
nicely in our artificial emulation. And I have found situations where
heavier pinning was necessary to get the jack to re-set under the knuckle
consistently. But in general, I have been migrating away from the notion of
the need for a measurable 4-6 grams (or whatever similar parameter you
choose) to make an action respond and be controllable.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
fssturm at unm.edu
http://www.createculture.org/profile/FredSturm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20101130/1fe9ac24/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC