Lighter or Heavier ?

[Tom Servinsky]

Ric,
What are your thoughts on the MBA, magnetic balanced action?  I understand
no lead is necessary at that point.
Tom Servinsky,RPT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pianotech@ptg.org [mailto:owner-pianotech@ptg.org]On Behalf
Of Richard Brekne
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 5:38 AM
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Subject: Re: Lighter or Heavier ?


Thanks a bunch for your thoughts Dale ! Neat post. I have a
little comments interspersed below. :)

RicB

Erwinspiano@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> > >         Hey Ric
>
>        I followed this only briefly. Bussssy week. Oh my
> goodness! Any way There is an experience I've had a few
> times with some actions where the key ratios and action
> ratios were really good. Without getting into many
> measurements just let me say that the effect was that even
> though static down weights approached 60 down on my
> Symphony Stwy D (1940) and the upweights were a nice
> snappy 28-30. No one has ever complained about the touch
> as being heavy.

I've heard this kind of thing more then once, and run into
it as well. I suppose this kind of thing is what has
stimulated many to looking closer to how action mass and
geometries really work together to establish a particular
touch.

>    John O' Connor played it a time or two as well as
> others. and never a complaint about the touch being
> heavy.  Seems to handle rapid passage work effortlessly.
> It has some lead closer to the balance rail as it's a
> accelerated action.

More lead... more acceleration ?? yet at the same time more
resistance to reversing directions. This is perhaps why
there is sometimes apparent confusion about inertia levels
relative to where (and how much) lead is place in the keys ?

>      I've also learned  from installing new key sets with
> corrected key ratios that less lead is used and similar
> results are attained. I believe  some lead is required  to
> give the piansit some semblance of  a "the normal feel"
> related to inertia and that some inertia IMO is desirable
> in a piano action. Physics says were going to have some
> like it or not but is better managed with efficient
> leverages.  When some of these systems are right it's like
> a supercharged V-8.

I tried to make this point a few weeks back when we got into
the discussion about how much lead was right. Seems to be a
desire by some to go for a minimal approach and I am not
convinced of that at all, tho first with this discussion am
I beginning to form a clear idea of just why.

>   My point is that the down weight upweight discussion
> takes on an entirely different parameters when things are
> set up right as opposed to the funky key and action
> geometry we deal with day in and out. Bottom line is that
> some action.key systems static weights may seem high ( 60
> over 30 ) but the dynamic effect when the keys are in
> motion tells an entirely different and pleasant story.

Which is sort of why I was asking for folks thoughts...
DW/UW sure seem directly related to touch, but dependant on
the exact action configuration a change in one direction
doesnt neccessarily lead to the same change in "feel". Which
leads us back to a need to put a better "number" on action
inertia amounts. Seems like if we want to be able to really
"design" any particular kind of touch into an action we need
a better handle on this.

>   Does that make sense to any one but me?

Grin... more and more all the time.
>      >>>>Dale Erwin>>>>>>>
>
>