Objective keydip measuring

[Jon Page]

Aftertouch - schmafterouch
If the geometry is right, it is automatic. 
The escapement point is conditional on the leverage of the action,
I think that the indiscrepancieas a pianist feels is in the Strike Weight
Ratio
and inertial differences.

However, we are forced to work with systems which are not optimum.
And by the same token can not be uniform note to note. So there is a "fix" .
We can either mask it with ingenious adjustment deviations or by altering
the action.

The first step is to graduate the weight of the hammers. (Have you weighed
a set?)
Next would be to graduate the front weight of the key for inertial smoothing.
Followed by adjusting the spring on the 'spring assist' wippens to the
desired Balance Weight.

I know this sounds like a commercial but with all the variable leverages,
this has produced the
best results for me (and my grateful customers).

We can choose to alter the adjustments so we can mask the inconsistencies
in the action
or we can change the action to meet the requirements of the customer.

My better playing customers chose the later (of course after following the
first option
- they never believe me at fist). Then I get to say. "I told you so".   So
they pay me twice :-)

Aftertouch, minimal, just enough to get that ppp w/ no effort (that means
minimal friction as well).
. . . Wispering through the softer passages . . .right at your fingertips .
. .

And then they ask, "Why didn't it play like this before"?

Jon Page
Harwich Port, Cape Cod, Mass. (jpage@capecod.net)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 03:29 PM 11/16/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Ed,
>
>At 05:24 PM 11/16/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>>I am assuming I am missing something here.  Does the above mean that you
will
>>vary the let-off in order to achieve consistant aftertouch?  
>
>As usual, you are not missing anything.
>
>The direct answer is, "yes".  
>
>The operational, and-how-do-you-really-do-it answer is that
>I _will_ change the letoff, but, only if I cannot get the
>consistency of _feel_ that I want by other means.  Actually,
>I suppose, I would, in practice, vary the dip before varying
>the letoff - but only a very small amount.
>
>_But_ a very great deal would depend on the pianist.
>John Perry would notice the dip before noticing the letoff.
>Morevic would (probably) have noticed the letoff before the
>dip.  Brendl is going to make you crazy no matter what, he
>feels everything.
>
>Sort of too bad, in a way.  All this work, and 99.99% of
>all possible players look at the keys of a piano as being
>88 on/off switches.  Well, at least, they play as if they
>think that way.
>
>Philosophically, aftertouch is, I think, a misunderstood
>phenomenon.  While it is true that with "too much" after
>touch you lose power, it is also true that it is precisely
>this range of key movement that real pianists depend so
>heavily upon for control.  Thus, in my practice, I am much
>more interested in the subjective perception of the regularity
>of the touch than in the (strictly observed) reductive
>measurement of it.
>
>Better?  Not?
>
>Best, in any event.
>
>Horace
>
>
>Horace Greeley, CNA, MCP, RPT
>Systems Analyst/Engineer
>Controller's Office
>Stanford University
>email: hgreeley@leland.stanford.edu
>voice mail: 650.725.9062
>fax: 650.725.8014
>
>