Very nice, very thoughtful post, Israel. I am impressed! How close to set the drop depends on another thing: How close do you live to the piano? Pianos regulated to within "a gnat's eyelash" (to borrow Ben Mcklveen's phrase) tend to be very sensitive to changes in humidity and other regulation points. So to some extent you are always trading off reliability and sensitivity. I like setting a very close drop in part because of how buttery it makes the piano feel. One of the issues that can arise with a closely set drop is are blubbering hammers. I find that, after I have set drop and all other regulation points are dialed in, some notes will blubber on soft playing. At that point, you have three choices: set the let off further away, set the drop further away, or lessen rep spring strength. We do not want to set the let off further away because of the loss of power and control that close let off gives us. Lessening rep spring strength is risky because of the possibility of failure during fast repetition and soft playing. So sometimes I will set the offending notes only so much further away as removes the blubbering. Ideally the drop would be the same on all notes, but in practice we sometimes must settle for less. Another alternative is to repin the rep lever top post to up around 8 grams. This allows you to keep a strong spring that aids fast repetition and assures that the jack will get back under the knuckle in soft playing or playing inside the keys, yet slows the rise of the hammer out of checking so as to make blubbering far less likely. You get your cake and eat it too this way. Of course, you are also likely to get the blubbering if the blow is set too high or aftertouch is too deep. And we always have to work within the other variables of action set up that are usually out of our control. We start with what we want to do and finish with what the piano allows us to do. Will Truitt -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Israel Stein Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 1:59 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: [pianotech] Regulating drop and controlling semantic drift Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:49:59 -0500 Chuck Raynor <diggeray at comcast.net> > Hi list, > I've been reviewing my notes from "Are You Regulationally Challenged?" which was presented at Grand Rapids this summer (great!!) and remembering a few other comments I heard, and have a few questions. In that class we were taught to set the drop screw to attain "simultaneous escapement"--essentially that the jack toe would hit the button at the same time the rep lever hit the drop screw, which results in a very small drop. On several grands I've tuned recently, I noticed that there was WAY more drop than that (and way more than the maximum 1/8" than I would normally expect). > I guess my question is "what's the purpose of drop?" Israel Stein says "so you know you have letoff". Will too large a drop effect repetition? Will it also effect the touch of the piano? That's my thinking, but I'd love the input of the experts so I have it firmly (and correctly) in my mind. > Thanks, > Chuck Raynor > Raynor Piano Service > St. Helena Island, SC > Well, well, I thought I might stay out of this one, especially since my name was so prominently mentioned (though the quote is a bit out of context, I might say) but the latest exchange of messages prompts me to attempt to clear up what I see is a big misunderstanding. Mr. Raynor's question is: "what's the purpose of drop?" Most of the very eloquent, expert and detailed answers posted answer a very different question, that is "what is the function of the drop screw". It seems to me that Mr.Raynor is asking a much more focused question: "Why is it that we want to see the hammer drop after letoff (that is, why do we make rep lever escapement occur slightly before jack escapement) when we regulate the action - and not simply regulate it so that jack escapement and rep lever escapement occur simultaneously as Rick Baldassin seems to recommend". (Nowhere is the possibility of reversing the order entertained).. To this question, my answer is "so that the exact point of letoff is visible". The only other direct answer to the question phrased this way that I have seen so far is one provided by Ed Foote, who writes that slightly staggering the points of jack escapement and drop screw escapement actually leads to a smoother "feel" than having therm occur simultaneously. I suppose this should be obvious to every one of us who regulates harpsichords - where we stagger the plucking points on multiple string choirs for precisely the same reason. Thanks , Ed, for pointing that out - never thought of the two being related. So I suppose this contradicts Baldassin's claim that simultaneous escapement is the most desirable way to regulate (at least theoretically). As to which of the two is really optimal, well, that question makes me think of quantities of angels dancing on the head of a pin or something of that order... Of course, Ed's reason would not mandate that jack escapement occur after rep lever escapement - a stagger in either direction would reduce the load. But that possibility was not suggested or implied in Mr. Boyce's question. So all the explanations about "keeping the hammer out of the strings" and "staying outside the string vibrational envelope" - while valid - are rather beside the point. But since they were brought up, I would like to point out that, in terms of the regulation process, we don't really "keep the hammer out of the strings" by regulating drop. We actually regulate letoff to be outside the string vibrational envelope, and then if drop is correctly regulated in relation to letoff, the desired result is achieved automatically. I know this is just semantics - but it is important to be very precise in one's language when trying to teach beginners - or all kinds of misunderstandings can occur. Mr. Boyce follows up with the question "how much drop" - that is, how far below the point of letoff is it OK or desirable for the hammer to drop". The simple answer to this - which I usually give when dealing with basic regulation is: "as little as possible". Which satisfies both reasons for visible drop given above - that is, there is absolutely no reason to make visible drop (or the stagger between rep lever and jack escapement) any larger than what is necessary to see the exact point of letoff - or to stagger the load during escapement. This is what Mr. Baldassin refers to in his statement: "drop affects nothing" - that the exact amount of drop has no effect on any other regulation specifications, so the exact amount really doesn't matter for purposes of getting everything to work properly. Points up another danger of quoting out of context (or - for that matter - of making broad statements without qualifiers.) So the entire dustup between Steven Hopp (quoting Baldassin) and Rick Breckne appears to be apples and oranges - Hopp/Baldassin are talking about the amount of visible drop, and Brekne is talking about the function of the drop screw and why rep lever escapement should occur before letoff escapement. This is why semantics are important... Just one more comment. I wonder how useful it is to throw a whole lot of information about fine concert regulation at someone who is just trying to learn the basics. The sort of skills that are needed to do the sort of regulations I have seen described in this thread come with experience, repetition and loads of trial and error - to develop the "feel" for the action and its function without which any attempt to regulate on this level is sure to result in disaster - or at least in repeated callbacks. Hell, I can remember myself fresh out of North Bennet Street School trying some of those fancy tricks on my first few regulations - and suffering the consequences. Sometimes I think that the reason folks have trouble learning regulation is not because of lack of information, but due to information overload. End of semi-rant. Happy Thanksgiving Israel Stein
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC