David, I agree with what you are saying here. To me, lack of friction tends to go along with deferred maintenance, difficult checking, and lack of control in soft playing. The spring tension can be set as high as possible for repetition, but without any friction in the hammer centers, one is pressing the limit for avoiding double-striking and the unsettled feeling in the key when the hammer shudders on lift. Deferred maintenance? Well, if hammers are set up to be very free from the outset, and the piano is played for a few years without repinning, of course one ends up with just about 0 friction. They play loud just fine. The heavy blows get the flyaway hammers into check. But is that what we want? A piano which plays loud and fast but has little subtlety or control in soft playing? Doesn't a little friction help the tone? It seems to me that the sound on fff would be darker and more substantial with some friction in the flanges. That is, when pianos have been played out and friction is way below what it was when they were new, one tends to call them "old bangers". History lesson, please? When did zero friction in hammers start to seem desirable? Susan Kline On 11/30/2010 7:40 AM, David Love wrote: > > 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 an action that has > friction settings that are lower in the bass lower 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 <mailto: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/20101130/38d96cec/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC