At 11:48 AM -0500 11/29/01, BobDavis88@AOL.COM wrote: >Is there ANY chance this is one of those with the growing action brackets >which will change leverages? Very good thought Bob. Or this just might be one of those Aeolian "runt grands", whose keyboard and action, in the engineering department, had been squashed from a 6" piano keyboard and action. You know, take the 6' keyboard, trim 1" off the back end of the keyboard and keyframe back rail, so you can fit this 6' keyboard into a 5' (or did you say 4-1/2') grand action cavity. The with the keyframe that much shorter in the back, lay the action cleats, and set the action closer to the balance point by just that much. Finish that up with moving the capstan line forward to fallow the rep heels, and you've got something which wants a short blow for a regular (with aftertouch) dip, or a deep dip for a regular blow. >9.5-10.5mm dip is good, including about .050 aftertouch. 10mm is best in most >pianos, even up to 11 can be used, but it tends to feel funny, and will >probably cause most sharps to bury. How tall are the sharps? The consequence of low action strike ratio. Either your sharps bury, or the hammerline has difficulty sliding under the pinblock. > >There is nothing inherently wrong with 1.5" blow, except the loss of power. >It is just an indicator of unusual design or condition, and should at least >make you suspicious (as you are). In fact, it will probably lower the >downweight. Because the action leverage is trading the perception of mass and weight for an increase in the stroke required at the key. >Force the dip as large as you feel comfortable with, and there >you go. You are limited by the design, but it's worth some exploration to >make sure that the problem IS the design. >Bob Davis At 8:09 AM -0800 11/29/01, Delwin D Fandrich wrote: >Has it occurred to anyone that the pianist might be better off with somewhat >lighter, more resilient hammers so we could move back toward a more >realistic key travel? Lighter more resilient hammers by themselves would certainly lower the down and up weights (among other things, for starters). And they would certainly make possible the kind of action leverage which is quite capable of running with 9.0 dip. But until we've actually moved the capstan line, we'll still have a dip/blow dilemma. One solution to this dilemma is a higher action ratio. Trading off the ability to lift heavy hammers, and gaining a more reasonable relationship between blow and dip (one which works with that actual facts of the pianos' case), you would be ahead of the game with "lighter, more resilient hammers". >The human hands and fingers can only put up with so >much abuse beyond which they will ultimately rebel. Even 10 mm of key travel >should be considered excessive for rapid key work. Sure it takes a bit of >getting used to now. Most everyone has become used to the massive actions >required to play today's somewhat less than musical pianos, but give them a >reasonable alternative and see what happens. (Yes, I've conducted the >experiments--people really can play the piano with a key travel of 9.0 to >9.5 mm. And, when the piano is tonally responsive, they love it!) >Del One of my favorite jazz tenor players gets a fabulous sound with a soft reed! I know what you're talking about, Del. Bill Ballard RPT NH Chapter, P.T.G. "Out here on the food chain, you either diet,die, or dine" ...........folksinger Mark Graham +++++++++++++++++++++
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC