---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment On 8-mei-05, at 6:19, David Skolnik wrote: > Andre - Hello David, > Your analysis is interesting, but I'm not sure without flaw, though=20= > it may be that I'm not understanding you entirely. > Before anything else, it should be understood that, within the realm=20= > of mechanical rationality and effectiveness,=A0 there is a range of = what=20 > is acceptable, or preferred, by pianists, whether professional or=20 > otherwise.=A0 Interesting, we'll go through it step by step. > Second, I would prefer to sidestep the issue of tonal effect, for the=20= > time being, as any experiment to evaluate such claims should be as=20 > controlled as possible, and also, I still haven't read the article.=A0 Fine.. this is about aftertouch neh? > What remains then are the issues of precision, tactile response, and=20= > consistency.=A0 I have no doubt, both logically and from my own=20 > experience with these punchings, that establishing a consistent key=20 > dip is easier than with softer, woven punchings.=A0 The sense of=20 > termination is more defined.=A0 There is a minimum amount of perceived=20= > compression at the end of the keystroke.=A0 I would assume that,=A0=20 > certainly in the earlier stages, these punchings would deform less=20 > than the woven variety, in general, though I've seen examples of the=20= > latter that I thought to be too hard to use.=A0 I suspect that the = long=20 > term deformation issue is, as you suggest, not a real concern, for the=20= > reasons you indicate. Exactly. > > So, what about this question of soft or hard landings?=A0 Frankly, I=20= > question your analysis of aftertouch.=A0 Aftertouch does not mean = "after=20 > the work has been done".=A0 Even apart from tactile expectations of = the=20 > pianist, or the need for a "real-world" safety margin, there is a=20 > degree of jack movement, past where the hammer drops, that is=20 > necessary for the action to function properly.=A0 In response to your=20= > comments, I performed an experiment which I found revealing. > > While not necessary for the experiment, I measured up and down weight=20= > of a sample note and calculated friction, which, in this case happened=20= > to be 6 grams (not my usual). > > I then determined the gram weight required to just move the jack=20 > through escapement from a static key, positioned at jack / let off=20 > button contact.=A0 This happened to be 120 grams. > > Using a very firm light green punching (I ran out of Wurzen's) I=20 > built up the front punching height until I found the point where the=20= > difference between the key moving through escapement or not was one=20 > white punching (.08mm / .0035"). > > =46rom that point, I removed paper punchings until I achieved what, = to=20 > me, felt like the traditional 'American'(?) amount of aftertouch. > > I measured the extracted paper punchings and got: .76mm / .030".=A0 > > This also seemed very close to what was necessary to allow the jack=20= > to stand clear of the descending knuckle.=A0 With less aftertouch, the=20= > knuckle would have to work to push back the jack (against a spring) on=20= > its way to check the hammer, losing some momentum in the process.=A0 = On=20 > a soft blow, this could make the difference between a captured hammer=20= > and one which bounces back. Sure, I agree... that is why I explained in detail the dangers of a so=20= called "hard landing" : quote "A very small aftertouch is called a 'hard landing'. It means that a very small part of the 'action', 'the works' is wasted. It also means that all the movements of keyboard and action combined=20 are translated into the finger of the technician/pianist as working=20 very directly, and thus very efficiently. Usually a hard landing is translated in an aftertouch of between 0 and=20= 0,5 mm. Many pianists prefer this 'hard landing' because the action feels very=20= precise, and that means that the pianist gets the impression of a fast=20= and precise working action. In other words : the pianist feels that he/she plays on a very sharp=20 and trustworthy piano. The technician though, has to re-regulate this instrument after every=20 concert." unquote The latter, because of problems with friction mostly between knuckle=20 and the escapement of the jack. Still, in my opinion, what a piano action is about, is to bring a=20 hammer towards the string thereby allowing the hammer to be checked and=20= the action ready for the next stroke. I don't mean anything childish with it, but need the example to=20 simplify what it is about. Now, if we depress a key, the hammer goes up to the string and because=20= of the relative speed, bounces back into the back check. At the same time, let off and drop have taken place simultaneously and=20= at that moment the action has done its work partially and is frozen,=20 unless we release the key. I say "partially" because the action parts have to of course return to=20= their former rest position. Up till now, that is basically what the hammer action was designed for.=20= That is "the work" the action has to perform. After "that work", the key goes upwards, thereby releasing the checked=20= hammer (slightly jumping up because of the rep spring) and the jack,=20 returning under the knuckle, ready for the next stroke. In my way of thinking, the work has been performed after let off and=20 drop. After let off and drop, the key is completely down and resting on the=20 punching. What comes then, the aftertouch, is of course part of the job, but it=20 happens in a mili second after the work has been done (i.e. the hammer=20= has struck the string). The after touch is a by-product and is there to=20= ensure that the jack can move away safely from under the knuckle,=20 without the hammer causing to bounce back on the very same jack. It is however an extra movement, and this extra movement is a loss of=20 precision. It is also a loss of energy and a loss of time, as they go=20 together in this case. The more aftertouch, the more loss of power and the more the=20 pianist/technician feels that loss of power. It is translated into a feeling of pushing air literally and that=20 creates a spongy feeling. So, the more aftertouch, the less precision in the action, the less=20 power in tone and the softer the touch. However... I must put the emphasis here on the fact that the key dip=20 remains the same, which is a generally agreed upon 10 mm. I would never change the key dip because that is a very firm basis for=20= all regulations and most action have been designed with that key dip=20 (and travel distance) in mind. > > I suppose you could make a case for the idea of trading aftertouch=20 > for power. Assuming a given key dip, the less taken up by aftertouch,=20= > the more travel/time is available to drive the hammer from further=20 > away or to closer to the string.=A0 On the other hand, since, to = reduce=20 > aftertouch you have to either increase blow or decrease key dip, such=20= > a revised dip dimension might feel considerably disconcerting to the=20= > pianist. Which takes you to the physiological component...what the=20 > pianist feels and what he/she expects to feel.=A0 Would you suppose=20 > there is such a thing as "finger-followthru", similar to follow=20 > through in most athletic motions?=A0 Maybe sometimes, the tactile feel=20= > is more critical than speed or power. Maybe, as with voicing, the=20 > repertoire acts as a determinant. I think it highly depends a. on the ability and technical skill of the=20= technician, and b. especially << on the demands and preferences of the=20= pianist. > >> If someone prefers a more, as you say, "cushioned stop", then that=20 >> person should allow for some more after touch. >> The surplus of after touch is actually a waste of energy and a waste=20= >> of time. >> The more waste, the more that feeling of "cushioned stop". >> Capisce? > > You seem to indicate a clear bias in favor of the firm landing over a=20= > softer one, and this, based upon the power-inefficiency inherent in=20 > the softer one.=A0 Nevertheless, if the pianist prefers the softer = feel,=20 > would you expect to find a difference whether that sensation is=20 > achieved by modulating the punching density as opposed to increasing=20= > aftertouch? My personal and first choice would be to have maximum power available. In my view, maximum power is available with a firmer punching, because=20= a. the extra 'bounce' is translated immediately through the action=20 towards the string, and b. because the firmer punching allows for a=20 more precise definition of the hammer travel distance AND aftertouch. It is comparable with driving a fast car : if the car allows for a=20 speed of 150 mph then I want to be able to use that available power. I=20= don't necessarily have to, but I want to be able to use it. If I use a softer punching, some of the power of the key going down=20 (and the hammer going up) disappears into it because the shock is=20 absorbed more. > > Perhaps someone could clarify the difference in what David Stanwood=20= > refers to as "pressed "felt, and your description of the Wurzen.=A0 As = I=20 > understand it, pressure is part of the felting process. I have personally gone through great lengths to understand that and it=20= is not hard to grasp. The felting process in general aims for an 'interlocking' of the wool=20 fibers. The more the wool fibers interlock, the more dense the new=20 material we call felt becomes and the more homogenous it will be in the=20= end. That seems clear, neh? The problem felt makers encounter is the degree in which they are able=20= to interlock the fibers. That degree of interlocking makes all the=20 difference between one felt and another. A felt, made with maximum interlocking, is the most homogenous and does=20= not need further compacting through pressing it. A felt where the interlocking has not fully happened, is not as=20 homogenous. In order to get the same weight and density, the felt makers press it,=20= compact it. That felt is of a totally different structure and quality because it is=20= not as stable and predictable as the felt with the maximum=20 interlocking. Of course the quality of the wool plays a very big role, and some other=20= factors, but this is basically what it is about. Way in the past, the former Weickert factory in the east of Germany was=20= then one of the leading hammer felt makers because they had mastered=20 the process of interlocking. The Russians/communists put an end to that=20= and that is why the production of that quality felt stopped. It gave other felt makers the opportunity to grab that part of the=20 market, but up till now, they have never found the secret of maximum=20 interlocking and the Weickert factory, now called Wurzen factory, has=20 re-established the former quality, but now has to fight its way back=20 after having been forced away from the market for more than 50 years. Not an easy task, but they remain positive and try very hard. friendly greetings from Andr=E9 Oorebeek www.concertpianoservice.nl "Where music is no harm can be" ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 10968 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/c4/ce/c5/bc/attachment.bin ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC