Low Inertia

[Stéphane Collin]

Hi list, Jim, Dave.

Jim, if I got you right, your main complain that you describe as a
"higher-than-you-would-like" dynamic touch weight is somehow related to what
I call the "hey-I-didn't-mean-that" effect.  That is : you have say a slight
crescendo effect in mind to enlighten only the main voice in a four parts
counterpoint, and when you do this, voila, you end up with that part far
louder than you wanted, obliging you to temper your playing, which is
frustrating.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
If this is the case, I would say that incriminating too high inertia as the
cause of this is not the way to go.
As for inertia, I do believe that with less inertia, the dynamic of the
action is transcribing the dynamic of your fingers more accurately, but this
is not what you want, as your fingers (how well educated and trained they
might be) are far from equal and under perfect control.  With a low inertia
action, the slightest difference in your finger's force will end up as a
large (too large maybe) change in sound from the piano.
I do believe that with more inertia in the action, your finger gets from the
action "resistance" a useful information about how hard it has actually
begun to strike the key, and you have the full 10 mm dip to adapt your
finger action to what your musical mind intended.  This goes intuitively, of
course.  But more inertia in the action is a remedy against unwanted out of
range dynamics.
Together with this action dynamics properties goes the soundboard
responsiveness.  Again, a soundboard that doesn't respond that well to the
action dynamics (understand that a large dynamic change input in the action
results in a small dynamic response in the soundboard) will oblige you to
exaggerate your finger input dynamics, which can or can not be agreeable.
All in all, I'd say that a good Steinway well regulated is unbeatable on
this topic : it does transcribe not your finger input, but your mind input,
equalizing all the minute discrepancies that might occur in your arms and
fingers, avoiding the "I didn't want this" effect.  That is, to me, the
reason why many pianists prefer this piano, as it is a safe way to go.  It
is like a do it all maid : you ask, she does.  A contrario, some more
difficult to control pianos can (or can not) inspire you by obliging you to
follow them into their own way of working.  But this is another topic.

But who am I to talk like this, when some heroes like Dave did the huge work
to scientifically analyze, compile and share hard facts data about what
works and what doesn't ?

Best regards.

Stéphane Collin. 

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of David C. Stanwood
Sent: vendredi 3 octobre 2008 14:50
To: Pianotech List
Subject: Re: Low Inertia

Jim,

I appreciate your thoughtful responses to the list..

I have to comment on your comment that my protocols don't address 
dynamic touch weight...  I know what your addressing is the smoothing 
of front weights but this is not the essence of the Stanwood 
protocol, just part of it.  The main foundation of the Stanwood 
protocol is addressing an appropriate matching of hammer weight and 
ratio.   We know from experience that certain combinations work in 
the dynamic mode and others don't.   Being able to identify the 
weight ratio of the action and picking an appropriate hammer weight 
level or vice versa does address the dynamic playing 
characteristics...

Thanks again,

David Stanwood

>><snip>
>>In the various weight balancing protocols, for example the 
>>Stanwood, much effort
>>is spent balancing out the response of the action, but, as my fingers
>>perceive it, the balancing effects are micro effects...an improvement, but
an
>>improvement which, alas, leaves my biggest complaint, a huge global 
>>complaint,
>>unaddressed, ie  I feel that most actions I have played possess a  high or
>>"higher-than-I-would-like" dynamic touch weight (hdtw).
<snip>