Ed Sutton wrote: > > Richard- > > My dictionary agrees with Don. > > But what we are trying to do here (I think?), is try to make piano actions better > for the pianists. > Since there are so many kinds of pianists, there might be many ways to make pianos > better, of more adapted to various players and ways of playing. > > And in particular, we were concerned with the placement of key leads. For a long > time many of us have followed the rule of thumb that it was better to produce a > given front weight by placing a large quantity of lead close to the balance rail > than by placing a smaller quantity close to the front, that this makes the action > "feel better" and repeat faster, at least in the bass octaves. > I think that is sound, as long as one is referenceing our "moment of inertia" in the sense that placeing leads closer will lower that moment for the same weighoff condition. Today, we have a much better way of expressing that sentence... Because of Stanwoods contribution to our metrology, which I think we should all adopt. Useing that I could rephrase my first statment thus... "I think that is sound, as long as we are choosing the lowest moment of inertia for equal front weight quantities." Then you know exactly what I mean. In the end the lowest moment of interia possible seems to be directly related to the fastest repetition possible. But then the fastes repetition possible as an isolated touch concern is not necesarilly a good thing, and in any case there are other touch concerns that need to be dealt with, and some of these are moment of inertia related. >............... > > Happy holidays to everyone. I'm very grateful for this list. > > Ed Sutton Amen to that Ed. Greatful is a fine word... to this list, and each and every one of you. Cheers and Merry Christmas RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC