Lighter or Heavier ?

[David Love]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Though it's true that lower inertia allows for a higher balance weight, =
I probably would not opt for a BW of 45 g unless it was requested that =
the action be on the heavy side.  I would consider a 40 g BW to be a bit =
meaty (37 - 38 g is my normal default), 45 g is pushing the envelope, =
for me anyway.

David Love =20


  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Erwinspiano@AOL.COM=20
  To: pianotech@ptg.org=20
  Sent: July 12, 2002 7:25 PM
  Subject: Re: Lighter or Heavier ?


  In a message dated 7/12/2002 4:20:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, =
Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no writes:



    Subj:Re: Lighter or Heavier ?=20
    Date:7/12/2002 4:20:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time
    From:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no
    Reply-to:pianotech@ptg.org
    To:pianotech@ptg.org
    Sent from the Internet=20

            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.=20
     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.     =20
       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.
    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.
    Does that make sense to any one but me?
       >>>>Dale Erwin>>>>>>>



    Thanks again Ed and Dave... and St=E9phane for your interest

    Seems like we have two ideas about how inertia levels affect
    the touch of the piano. On the one hand we've said several
    times the the higher the inertia the slower the action
    repetition... and this has been equated loosely with terms
    like sluggishness and then from this perspective, heaviness.
    Then on the other hand a bit more lead is said to perhaps
    lead to a lighter "feel" due to the help inertia lends ones
    the key is in motion.

    Interesting and to some degree conflicting lines of
    thinking. All and all it leads one to think that Stanwood
    ideas are fine.... a great refinement in relation to simple
    DW/UW measurements.. but perhaps should be refined further
    to somehow put a number on inertia .... inertia zones
    perhaps.

    I agree tho in the answers you two kindly voluntered that
    DW/UW has a direct relationship to "touch" or "feel", yet
    that these are also affected by other relationships.=20

    Thanks again... would have liked to heard from others...
    but. :)

    Cheers
    RicB





---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/45/36/2b/60/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--