[CAUT] Keydip--how deep

[A440A@aol.com]

 Fred writes:  
>> <snip> it is true that as of a few years back Steinway went to  
one dip block for all, with "S-D" on the back. Maybe it was just a  
cost cutting move <g>.<<

     I can understand the factory need for consistantcy, but before one 
exceedingly important parameter can be applied to all actions,  it is critical that 
all OTHER parameters are consistant.  I have not found this to be the case 
with Steinway!   The plate height seems to wander,  and the actions fitted to 
them have to accomodate them by varying the stack height. This often changes the 
intersection of the capstan/whippen.  Coupled with the not exactly consistant 
action rail spacing, (spread), and the inherent variability of the parts,  I 
don't favor a given dimension for the static key dip.  I favor consistant 
aftertouch, instead, for the following reasons. 
   1.   Many notes on a piano are played from less that full keystroke, 
(watch a pianists fingers quite closely and you will see that keys are often held 
below the normal at rest position before they are played).  This obviates the 
notion of simple key travel being critical. 
    2.  The ability to detect say, .010" difference between two keys 
traveling near .400"  (that is a 2.5% difference) is far more difficult than to detect 
the .010" difference between two keys' .030" aftertouch, (which is about a 
33% difference).  
    3.  The softer the note, the more difference is felt, and control at the 
softest levels of playing is far more dependant on the sensation of escapement 
and aftertouch than total amount of movement in the key.  

      I once "triage" regulated an action that, for some reason, had quite a 
few hammer shanks resting on the stop felts.  I didn't have time to do 
anything but even out the hammer-line.  This restored aftertouch to those "lower" 
notes.   The player was amazed at how much more even the piano was, saying, 
"Great! now all the keys move the same".   The keys moved the same as they had 
before, since I didn't change any of the key-dip, level, or let-off, or anything 
else.  This indicates to me that the sensation of aftertouch has more to do 
with the perception of key-stroke that anything else,(within reason, of course).  
    We all have our procedures worked out to give us our best results, so 
aftertouch priority may not fit in other's plans, but the response I have gotten 
in the past makes me think it is the way to go. 
    A final refinement:  If I place a .007" punching at the bottom of all  
front rail pins before I do anything else, I can use that as a limit for 
alteration of the key dip, ie.  after setting the all the keydip with a touch block 
to exactly the same static distance, I can then go back and use the 
aftertouch-priority approach.  If I need more keydip than I can get by removing that 
.007" punching  to get a consistant aftertouch, I will then slightly raise the 
hammer.  If I needed to decrease the keydip by more than .007", I will add add 
that punching and then slightly lower the hammer.  In this way, I split the 
difference between key-dip and hammer blow, and the differences between keys 
simply disappears!  If this procedure is coupled with a consistant FW curve, ALL 
pianists comment on the evenness of the action, (I am a little fussy about 
let-off and drop,too).  
Regards, 
Ed Foote RPT 
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html