Grand Action Work (Help)

[RobertD429@aol.com]

In a message dated 96-01-26 12:29:31 EST, Charles Ball raises three questions
-- one of background, one of ability, and the other of financial
practicality. I'd like to deal with each:

>I have been following the recent postings regarding action diagnosis,
>geometry, touch weight, etc. We are so fortunate, I feel, to have
>individuals in our profession in possession of such extensive knowledge and
>understanding regarding the physics of grand piano actions, and that they
>are so willing to share their expertise with those, like myself, lacking in
>a scientific background.

Hi, Charles -
I, too, am daily grateful to the generosity of my colleagues. Many of the
technicians discussing this issue don't have an engineering background,
either, but may have a grasp of a little (or not-so-little) piece of the
answer. The discussion serves not only to bring all the pieces together, but
also to get them into a language which makes sense to us non-engineer types.
We mustn't underestimate our power of teamwork. I believe that this subject
is more important than we may have given it credit for in the past, but that
it is both conceptually and technically within the ability of any of us who
take some extra time to grind through it a few times, at least with the
support of our friends. I'll address the practicality of applying all this
information in a minute.

>.... even if I was in possession of the engineering skills to understand and
diagnose >grand actions in this manner, and in possession of the technical
skills to
>remanufacture actions accordingly,  most of the circumstances under which I
>work will not permit the time, money or resources to take such an extensive
>approach to every problematic action I undertake to service or rebuild....
>....Usually we have had difficulty finding the funds to
>purchase the hammers and shanks & flanges needed for a action overhaul. Time
>is also a restraining factor. Similar restraints exist in my private
>practice--many of my musician clients are as impecunious as are many of us
>technicians, and can ill afford a major remanufacturing of their Steinway
>action.
>
>....what are some practical steps I can take.... in cases where
>there are restraints in resources (i.e. technician skills, time, money,
>etc.)? In other words, in situations more reflective of the real world.

Now to address the practical. Stay with me, because at first it doesn't sound
like I am. The line between the "ideal" and the "real" is somewhat soft; two
reasonable people might not agree on its exact location. An all-out effort
may be real-world-practical in some instances. In the most demanding
situations, we must try our best for a complete understanding of the system,
including action weight, friction, inertia, leverage and voicing. It is not
only our obligation to the client, it is a practical necessity (from a
performer's standpoint what are the tools of personal expression besides
touch and tone?). Complete resolution of an action problem takes time, and
time costs money, period. If the client is unwilling or unable to pay the
price, s/he may simply not get the best resolution of the problem.

However, as you mention, part of our responsibility is to make sure ALL of
the client's needs are met, and that includes matters of the exchequer. The
other side of the coin, then, is that better understanding of the system also
leads to more efficient and effective methods, which can actually keep costs
down at any chosen depth of work. It may not only lead to less-expensive
alternative solutions which are at least acceptable, it may also help us
avoid work which will not solve the problem. For instance, suppose a client
complains of a "heavy" action. After five or ten minutes of rough assessment
we perhaps say, "The problem here is not weight. It's inertia. More lead
would cost money but be pointless."  Where others would stick in more lead,
we have avoided unnecessary expense. Then we have several choices, depending
on the pocketbook.
  1) Change the leverage. This swaps finger travel for key lead, lowering
inertia, and may consist of changing action parts, moving the action rails,
moving capstans and heels, and so forth.
  2) Remove inertia from the front of the key by replacing light weights
which are distant from the balance rail with heavier leads closer in. Less
expensive than 1).
  3) Remove inertia from the hammer. This may consist of replacing the
hammers with lighter ones, or filing, coving tails, and further tapering of
the existing ones. This might be appropriate all by itself if money is an
issue AND enough mass is left to provide the desired sound.Or maybe someone
else put on hammers that were too heavy for the action design, and everything
else is fine.
  4) ?

Thorough understanding also leads to clarity of expression, and financial
decisions are based on priorities. I'm convinced that if in my explanation to
the client I can say succinctly, "The problem is this. The potential
solutions are this, this, and this. The benefit and drawback of each is this,
at this cost," my customer is more likely than not to make a more complete
solution fit his priorities.

>A true panacea, or cure-all, for grand action touch weight problems can not
>ignore all these practical considerations.

Finally, the methods of assessment which we have been discussing recently are
not nearly so time-consuming as they might sound to someone who's not used to
them.  They lead to better use of whatever money is available by making the
"3-D Action Simulation" in our heads clearer and more detailed, which makes
us better able to juggle multiple variables. Although "panacea"  implies one
solution for all problems, what we have is much better: many solutions for
any one problem. Understanding of the system leads to options. Control and
flexibility are about as close to panacea as we get and, I think, close
enough.

Kind regards,
Bob Davis ( UT '68 )
University of the Pacific
Stockton, CA