Some interesting exchanges in another forum prompts me to bring up this subject once more. We spend a lot of time thinking about reducing key leads, how important that is or isnt, and perhaps this is all far less significant then we have taken for granted. Jim Ellis's standpoint is that the Hammers V is what by far dominates the overall action inertia. This has a couple of rather significant consequences if true... and it seems reasonable to me at this point anyways that it is true. Number 1... it rather totally defeats the whole point to contriving an adjustable touchweight system. Since non of these systems actually alter the mass of the system to begin with... much less alter the mass of the dominant part of the action inertia, then the action that plays heavy (beyond very light play) will remain unaltered thus when the balance weight adjuster is changed. Secondly, it rather limits the validity of any scheme for lowering or replacing key leading at all, as the keys inertia plays only a small part in the total inertia of the action. It would seem to put us back in that same old box.... just how much hammer weight is enough for tone, and not too much for touch. And it would seem to not allow us much room for fooling the system with changes is either leverage, keyweight reduction schemes, or the rest of it. Whatdya Whatdya ?? Cheers RicB -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC