Adjusting wippen assist springs

[Sarah Fox]

Hi John,

I've often thought about dynamic range vs. action efficiency.  I agree with
what you say, to a point.  I wonder, though, what lies in the future of the
piano.  Remember that pianids (coining a term<g> -- like homonids, except
referring to keyboard instruments) were not very efficient instruments early
in their evolutionary history.  They had one string, rather than three,
hence a third the mass straight off.  The string was finer (I think) and
therefore less massive.  It was under lower tension, and therefore couldn't
be driven as forcefully.  Hammers were smaller.  Hammer shanks were thinner.
Soundboards were smaller.  Etc., etc.  Things change.

In the grand scheme of things, there is a lot more room for pianid
evolution -- and homonid evolution as well!  Stiffer, lighter action parts,
combined with more massive, higher tensile strings, combined with
high-tensile, synthetic soundboard materials, combined with more massive
hammers of more elastic materials, etc.  I can easily see the saturation
points of the action, strings, and soundboard continuing to augment, giving
the pianist an even greater possible dynamic range.  With all of this, I
suspect we will see progressively smaller but more efficient pianos for home
use, vs. "normally" sized but very high output pianos for concert use.  I
think there are a world of possibilities.  I think it all starts, though,
with getting rid of the inefficiencies and putting the input energy to
better use.

Peace,
Sarah

----- Original Message ----- 
[link redacted at request of site owner - Jul 25, 2015]
To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Adjusting wippen assist springs


> Sarah Fox wrote:
> IMO, the only function of keystick inertia is to make the piano feel
> > "familiar" to pianists who are trained on pianos with lots of keystick
> > inertia.  However, I doubt it results in a better instrument, and I
would
> > expect that the instrument will ultimately evolve to a lower keystick
> > inertia and a heavier hammer.
>
>
> Sarah,
>
> Good work on explaining all this. I agree with you in general but I
> believer there may me times when increasing the key's inertia would be
> beneficial. If we make the action as efficient as possible making it
> easier for the pianist to play me could truncate the musician's dynamic
> range. If the piano reaches it's full power at a playing level of mf or
> f, for example, any expressive shading above this level will be lost.
>
> I made two graphs showing what I am thing about here:
>
[link redacted at request of site owner - Jul 25, 2015]
>
[link redacted at request of site owner - Jul 25, 2015]
>
> You also wrote that the inertia of the hammer does not add to the
> inefficiencies of the action because it's force will be transferred to
> the string. This is an interesting point but I think there will be a
> hefty penalty paid by a massive hammer due to the compliance of the
> shank and other parts.
>
> The most efficient action would probable have little or no counter
> balancing leads and light hammers. Unless you are a 90 pound weakling
> such an action would be less that ideal.
>
>
> John Hartman RPT
>
> John Hartman Pianos
[link redacted at request of site owner - Jul 25, 2015]
> Rebuilding Steinway and Mason & Hamlin
> Grand Pianos Since 1979
>
> Piano Technicians Journal
> Journal Illustrator/Contributing Editor
[link redacted at request of site owner - Jul 25, 2015]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives