Objective keydip measuring

[Horace Greeley]

Ed,

Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply.

At 10:56 PM 11/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>    This is really interesting, that there are so many ways of setting
>actions.  

One of the beauties of the earlier American actions (read:  "Steinway,
Wessell, Nickle & Gross, and, to a certain extent, M&H) is the 
tremendous range of possibilities through which it is possible to get a
truly fine regulation.  Sadly, those days are gone.

>    I, for one, would not make the point of let-off inconsistant from note to
>note. 

As noted, it would not be my first choice either - rather, my last.  At the
same time, I will instantly sacrifice even the most sacred of all possible
cows to acheive the perception of evenness.

>   Following a regulation class by Chris Robinson,  I changed my regulation
>procedures to produce a consistant aftertouch by varying the keydip after
>hammerline and let-off were set. ( I set the let-off in the piano, as close to
>the maximum string excursion limits as possible).  

Yes, the is the traditional "S&S" (to the extent that they will acknowledge
anything officially) method, as taught by just about everyone from Bill
Hupfer and Franz Mohr right through Joe Biseglie.  

Also, if I am correctly reading your specification for let off, it could almost
read something to the effect of:  "Closer than humanly possible, allowing for
your best estimate of somebody crashing through Prokofiev on it"  - Yes?
Mine is just as paper thin as I think can get away with.

>    This procedure caused comments from several of my regular customers, they
>all noticed an increased evenness to the concert pianos and recording pianos
>that they were familiar with here.  NOBODY noticed that the actual keydip was
>varied by as much as .010" to do this. They just noticed that the action felt
>more consistant.  ( I know that under rapid pianissimo playing, the front rail
>felts are often not touched, as the keystroke is not carried all the way to
>the bottom.  I have measured this).  This way of setting keydip also takes any
>inconsistancy in keylevel out of the equation.  

That has been my experience for a very long time.  Very few pianists ever 
notice the variation in dip.  On the other hand, those who do can become
very annoyed by it.  Byron Janis and Eugene Istomin come to mind.
Also, while I certainly agree with, and actively do, use this method to
(help) compensate for key leveling problems, I am also pretty anal
about the leveling to begin with.

>    After some time,  it occured to me that the difference between keydips
>could be minimized if the hammerblow was also brought into the average, so I
>began to set up the keyframes with a .007" punching on the bottom of the
>frontpins,  before any cardboard or felt was installed, afterwhich I set the
>keydip at .380" by use of a weighted touchblock.  Then, during the final
>setting of the keydip, if subtracting more than this .007" was required to get
>the .050" aftertouch, I raised the hammer.  If the aftertouch required adding
>more than the same, I raised the hammer.  

Interesting, I think that we probably accomplish the same ends through
slightly different methods, but I sure like yours as being more front-end
methodical.  Probably faster than mine, too.

>    This procedure produces a very slightly erratic looking hammer line, but
>resulted in a very even sense of touch.  Unfortunately,  there are very few
>artists that can tell this difference, and some of my competition took it upon
>themselves to point to this as evidence of sloppy regulation on my part.     

As noted earlier, the numbers of pianists who can even begin to discern
this level of work is appallingly small.  Probably growing smaller each year.
I've probably missed getting any comments to Charles Ball about teaching
in a timely fashion, but, for the record, want to note that pianists, as a
group are the most uneducated musicians as to their instrument.  Even
singers know more about their larynx than pianists know about pianos.
Courses in acoustics, required for many other music majors, have been,
in my experience, routinely avoided by pianists.  What "training" they
do receive about technical issues is, well, best left undiscussed.

Further, since, after reaching a certain point of "accomplishment", they
come to be looked to for, and, believe that they have technical knowledge,
nay, competency - the resulting nonsense is something which none
of us have escaped.

As to the competition,  well, this begins to border very closely on
why I now maintain such an exceptionally limited range of piano
related activities - a few concert series, a few recording studios, and
even fewer private clients, and, as with my opinions about the
technical training received by most pianists, is best left alone.

>Regards, 
 
And, to you, as well!

Horace