even balance weight or something

[Classic Touch Ent]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Hi David,

Sounds like a very reasonable starting place (the muting experience 
should produce interesting results and 'feedback?'. As a pianist I can 
say for sure that given enough time I get used to whatever I've been 
playing (whether I think its normal or not is another story.) To date 
my personal experience has been:      My first piano = (new) late 60's 
Baldwin 'acrosonic' spinet. 2nd piano=(bought in early 80's) 1905 Mason 
Hamlin AA USED complete with mismatched Aeolian hammers,shanks,flanges 
THEN restored 2002 with correct Renner action parts, repaired  board, 
custom cold drawn (european) bass, remainder Roslau strings, and a 
'second to none regulation' (talk about your Also Sprach Zarathustra 
experience). 3rd piano 1964 and a half Mason Hamlin CC (just broken in 
really)  first 2 years of its life the
as necessary concert rental out of the Manhattan Mason dealer showroom 
(some very particular artist(s) must have played this in concert 
because the regulation even now is such a pleasurably responsive 
experience), then having regular but minimal use until I purchased in 
July 2003 and immediately restrung (same stringing as Mason AA).
    Yes there is a point to all this.  1.) I got used to and could 
perform musically on each of these instruments. 2.) the Baldwin and the 
unrestored AA could not get me where I wanted to go (not responsive 
enough/dynamic range extremely limited) no matter how much 
practice/energy expended. I learned to STRUGGLE.  Restored AA and the 
CC gave me the experience of what it is to play 'without constant 
struggling', then 'with relaxation' , then 'with total childlike 
abandon'  WHEE-E-E-E-E!!!!!!  Fortunately for me I never bought in to 
the 'heavier all the time is better  just in case/ for when I run 
across it' mindset. My practice routine has evolved to include the 
softest pianissimo (for at least an hour at a clip each day) and the 
biggest (fat &/ thundering but not machine-gun percussive) fortissimo 
(also for an hour at a clip each day). That keeps me competent for 
reasonably heavy and reasonably light actions.
It is still TOUGH to go from the delight of either Mason to MANY other 
pianos I have the opportunity to perform on (setting aside regulation 
differences) just because of my tonal quality/color/sustain 
preferences. I just love the synergy of so many elements coming 
together in a personal preference kind of way. This is where I believe 
David's  idea of 'mute regulation analysis' has maximum potential 
value. It precludes me (the pianist) from dragging other personal 
preferences (having little or nothing to do with action response/feel)
into the feedback. Playing without sound. My initial reaction is 
'fingernails on the chalkboard', but I'd volunteer in a heartbeat if 
asked.

        I believe (okay I hope, better make that PRAY) we could arrive 
at a standard or a 'standard range' BUT EVEN FAILING THAT perhaps a 
'certification' of balance weight/front weight ratio or whatever system 
is used to label/quantify the 'feel' pianists want or claim they want.
        I believe that venues that have their  own instruments, or 
concert instrument rental businesses have conflicting economic interest 
in what they deliver to the performer/audience & what their fee scales 
will be based upon (lower fees don't always/not even usually produce 
better value). Once again what is the perception of true value? With a 
certification system for concert instrument providers, standards have 
the potential to increase competition to provide better musically  
responsive product to the performer, and ultimately better performances 
for the audience. COWABUNGA DUDE !!

Best, Rich Olmsted


On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 09:41 PM, David Love wrote:

>
>
>  I'll stick my neck out and say that you could easily establish a 
> standard.
> If you could poll all pianists about their likes and dislikes, have 
> them
> sit down to a row of mute pianos and just feel the actions, my bet is 
> that
> there would be a fairly normal bell shaped curve with a standard 
> deviation
> that would bring 95%of the players within a fairly narrow range of 
> balance
> weight and regulation specs.  Some of the outliers might actually be
> personal preference, some might be misperception.  Tastes may also have
> something to do with what people are used to.  Once you've learned to 
> get
> what you need out of that 1970's B with more lead than wood in the 
> keys, it
> feels normal to you. Over the past couple of years,  I have defaulted
> almost everything to a narrow range of 34 - 42 balance weight with 
> front
> weight maximums in the 85 - 90% range depending on requests of lighter
> versus heavier and the particular set of hammers.  Regulation specs 
> have
> always taken priority and I have not deviated far from 10 mm dip 
> delivered
> by a SBR of 5.6 - 5.8.  If I had to choose a standard it would be 
> smack in
> the middle:  38 balance weight, 5.7 SBR which produces a regulation of 
> 10
> mm dip, front weights below maximums by 10 -15%, and whatever the SW 
> zone
> that both fits into all that and is realistically acheivable with the 
> set
> of hammers you have.   Setting the action up with an adjustable rep 
> spring
> to get you that entire range quickly (if you wanted to) would mean 
> that the
> rep spring would need to displace an average of 8 grams of BW (lower is
> better in my opinion).  With a midrange default of 38 BW, to get to 34 
> BW
> you would then have to go up to 12 grams for the rep spring, and for 42
> down to 4 grams leaving you a comfortable margin of error.  My guess is
> that you would have very few complaints
>
>  David Love
>  davidlovepianos@earthlink.net
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Phillip Ford <fordpiano@earthlink.net>
>> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
>> Date: 4/28/2003 1:47:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: even balance weight or something
>>
>> I received this e-mail privately from Rich Olmsted and am responding 
>> to
> the list with his permission as I thought this was interesting and I 
> think
> contributions to the list from pianists are valuable.
>>
>> At 08:22 AM 4/24/03 , you wrote:
>>> Dear Phil,
>>>
>>> I appreciated your (below) remarks, and think you are right on about
> the
>>> nature of the (real world) issue(s). From my own experience and in my
>>> discussions with colleagues (pianists all). Some observations &
>>> suppositions include:
>>>
>>> 1.) Pianists may prefer more inertia/ heavier actions because, even 
>>> if
>>> less inertia/lighter might be personal preference, most pianos
> performed
>>> on in the field (concert hall or other) would not match the pianists
>>> personal preference so... better to be able to perform on the
>>> stiffest/heaviest of actions (because an audience has no idea how 
>>> good
> or
>>
>>> bad (responsive) the action is). They often assume the performance is
>>> entirely about the pianist (with the possible exception of an out of
> tune
>>
>>> piano) in much the same way that they often assume an out of tune 
>>> piano
>> is
>>> entirely about the tuner.
>>> 2.) Well practiced pianists tend to develop chops & can cope with
> greater
>>
>>> inertia (they can do the heavy lifting)
>>
>>          I was aware that many pianists take this approach of working 
>> on
> a heavy action so that they can build up trength and stamina to deal 
> with
> heavy actions when they encounter them.  One of the unfortunate
> consequences of thisfor some pianists is physical damage.  Another
> unfortunate consequence is that some teachers take this as some sort of
> mantra and tell their students to buy a piano with a heavy action so 
> that
> they can 'develop their strength', even if these students have no 
> desire or
> ability to be professional pianists, and the result is a piano that's a
> chore to play.  Also, the upper limit of what defines a heavy action 
> may be
>>> determined by a piano action that is poorly set up, so that the 
>>> pianist
> is building himself up more than he would need to if he got to play on
> actions that were well designed or set up.  I'm reminded of a pianist 
> (a
> young woman) I saw recently on TV playing the Rachmaninoff 3rd piano
> concerto, which she had presumably been practicing a lot.  She had arms
> like a blacksmith's.
>>>          Also, my experience as an amateur pianist is that the best
> situation for me when playing on different pianos is for the piano to 
> be
> similar to my personal piano.  I have trouble if the action is a lot
> heavier because my muscles are not built up to deal with it.  But, I 
> also
> have problems controlling the action if it's a lot lighter.  If a
> professional constantly practices on a heavy action doesn't he have 
> some
> control problems when he encounters a very light or fleet action?
>>
>>
>>> These things aside,  I like choices and I don't mind change IF it
>> produces
>>> a great enough return. So there is a difference between the market 
>>> for
>>> 'performing' pianists (performers at multiple venues), and the market
> for
>>
>>> pianists who almost exclusively perform on their own instrument.
>>>
>>> What is difficult to manage is having the action change
>>> significantly/unpredictibly with every piano/venue.
>>>
>>> Maybe we (pianists) don't have much choice. I'm wondering if having
> more
>>> choices would just create another whole set of issues, but I think 
>>> more
>>> choices has the potential to educate, AND EDUCATION IS KEY !!!!
>>>
>>> Best, Rich Olmsted
>>
>>
>> Good points.  The sort of range of choices that I was talking about
> really only make sense for pianists' personal nstruments or for those 
> very
> few artists that get to travel with an instrument.  It would be 
> interesting
> to see what pianists would end up choosing for themselves if they were
> given some options.  Performing pianists of necessity desire uniformity
> from instrument to instrument, since they are required to play on so 
> many
> different instruments.  I suppose their ideal would be a sort of 
> 'standard'
>>> action that would be the same from piano to piano.  But what should
> this standard action be like?  The technical community is gaining the
> knowledge to set actions up to give desired results rather than take
> whatever results from putting a bunch of action parts together.  
> Perhaps
> it's time to start talking about a standard action setup, just as we 
> have a
> standard pitch.  Performing artists would then not have surprises when 
> they
> showed
>>> up to play on yet another instrument unknown to them.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Phil Ford
>>>
>>>> Phil Ford wrote:
>>>> I think this shows that different pianists have different ideas 
>>>> about
> how
>>>
>>>> pianos ought to feel.  I think we have been lead to believe that 
>>>> there
> is
>>>
>>>> an ideal setup and we just have to find it.  I wonder if we 
>>>> shouldn't
> be
>>>> working towards having the ability to vary the feel of the actions 
>>>> more
>>> in
>>>> a quantifiable way to give pianists more choice. Some might like
> heavier,
>>>
>>>> some lighter.  Some more inertia, some less. Some evenness from one 
>>>> end
>>>> to the other, others a graduation from one end to the other, etc. 
>>>> Now,
> to
>>>
>>>> the extent that we give them any choice at all, it seems to be - you
> can
>>>> have this balance weight or that one.  Sort of like saying, what
> flavor
>>>> would you like, vanilla or french vanilla.  I also wonder if having
> some
>>>> of these options might change their tastes somewhat.  I sometimes 
>>>> hear
>>>> technicians say that pianists like 10 mm keydip, heavy actions, lots
> of
>>>> inertia,
>>>> etc.  Not surprising, since that's what most of them play on all the
>>>> time.  They don't have much choice.  And most of them don't like
>>>> change.  But if they were given a chance to live with some other
> setups I
>>>
>>>> wonder if they wouldn't end up preferring them.  (I suppose this is 
>>>> a
> bit
>>>
>>>> like the temperament discussions).
>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 13086 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/35/6f/f0/ea/attachment.bin

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