Journal Articles

[James Ellis]

This is one I can't resist, so I am going to jump in here with my "two
cents worth" (No, it's not about tuning).

"PRACTICAL CONCERT WORK" by Jim Hudson, June 2004:

What no one seems to have noticed is the word "Practical" in the title.
That sets the tone for the whole article, but some readers did not seem to
hear it.  Fred Sturm says he prefers to set let-off at 1/32 inch.  Well, I
don't.  If I set it like that, I'd be in trouble for sure.  That's right at
the very edge of blocking, and even if it does not block outright, it does
not produce a clean let-off, and that results in occasional bizarre sounds
when the hammer does not completely clear the very first-half cycle of the
strings vibration.  David Love says setting let-off like this is
"dangerous", and I agree.  Otto Keyes says "consistency" is what one should
strive for, and I agree with that too.  But if you regulate to a "gnat's
eyelash", Bill Garlick has said you better stick around for the concert.
True, but that might be too late.

In all this nit-picking with Jim Hudson's article, did no one mention drop
regulation?  If you want consistent response for playing very soft
passages, you had better pay close attention to that too, as well as to
consistency in the regulation of the repetition springs, and everything else.

"MAGNETIC ASSIST FOR GRAND PIANO ACTIONS", by Richard Brekne, June 2004:

With all this interest in nit-picking Jim Hudson's article, am I the only
one who has taken a special interest in Brekne's article?  This is really
neat!  It is innovative.  It is clever.  There are other magnetic touch
systems around, but this one has something clever that the others don't.
One of the first questions that popped into my head was the non-linear
decrease in magnetic repulsion as the two tiny magnets move farther apart
as the key moves.  Richard takes care of that by suggesting a second pair
of magnets behind the capstan, which would be attracting.  Thus, the
non-linear repulsion of the first pair would be compensated by the opposing
non-linear attraction of the second pair.  Very clever indeed!!  In other
words, the combined effects would apply a measured force tending to rotate
the front of the key downward and the wippen upward around a pivot at the
point where the capstan touches the wippen cushion.  Since the capstan
never leaves the wippen coushion, the action ratio is not changed.  All
that happens is that the need for lead in the fronts of the keys, and the
moment of inertia is reduced, without the use of springs.  The thing to
watch out for here will be that the spacing of the magnets will need to be
regulated as the capstan depresses farther into the wippen cushion over
time.  This, in my opinion, is very clever and very innovative, and I for
one would like to see how it all plays out in the end.  Congratulations,
Richard!

Sincerely, Jim Ellis