At 08:25 PM 10/8/2003, you wrote: >At 1:31 AM +0200 10/9/03, Richard Brekne wrote: >>Got to thinking a bit about all the various countebalancing schemes >>there are out there... and had a second gander at this whippen sort... >>signert Seigfried. Very cute... you could feasably balance a real >>pounder of a hammer on there if you wanted without any of the concerns >>of weight on the lower action. Interesting thought. Drawbacks ?? You >>call em. > >Counterbalancing at the shank (though rare) is no different from >counterbalancing at the key. (They're both levers in the grand action.) >What force of gravity you may erase with counterbalancing simply reappears >as extra inertia. The same issues all over again. > >Bill Ballard RPT >From a touchweight standpoint, counterbalancing at the key or the shank have the same effect. From a tonal standpoint they don't. Increasing the inertia of the hammer and shank is going to increase the time that the hammer is in contact with the string, which is going to affect the tone. Whether or not that's a good thing I can't say. Perhaps in the bass that would be a good thing. In the treble I would think it would be a bad thing. Phil Ford
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC