----------------PREVIOUS POST--------------
In a message dated 95-06-10 17:29:33 EDT, Richard West wrote:
>Are all 9' concert grand actions created equal when looked at from a
>geometric perspective? In other words, can there be many geometric
>variations to get the most power, repetition, and control out of an action
given
>a 9' length and less concern about the economics of building the
>"ideal" piano than a smaller grand. Secondly, if there is an ideal,
>can we in the field really recognize that any one particular action is
>not up to par.
----------MY REPLY--------------
There have been many postings on the network about your questions. David
Stanwood has done a lot of research in this regard and you might want to contact
him for information. Another possibility for information is in Albuquerque at
the national. I know David will be teaching, and I am giving a slide
presentation about a second action I made for a concert grand here at Oberlin.
The primary motive for the additional action was to have two voicing options
("bright" for orchestral use and "dark" for chamber music). However, I changed
the geometry (leverage) on the new action to give less inertia and a "better"
feel. The modifications were problematic because both actions had to fit in the
same action cavity. The two actions are quickly interchangable, though (matter
of minutes), and pianists really like having a choice even though only one piano
is available. They feel and sound quite different, and I will have quality tapes
to play at the convention of both actions.
Ken Sloane, Oberlin Conservatory
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC