[CAUT] Erard

[A440A at aol.com]

Greetings, 

      Inre regulation of an Erard, I wrote: 
<< The hammers must not lie on the rest rail, nor be 
>more than 5
>mm above it.  This is your hammer range.  

Israel replies: 
>>Not on an old Erard, Ed. You better maximize the strike distance if 
you expect to be able to get any kind of a sforzando or forte out of 
that piano. It's a low tension scale - weak attack, long, rich, 
beautiful decay. That's why they designed it with a very long strike 
distance (up to 2 1/8") - you really do need the hammer momentum...<< 

    Agreed, that is why I wrote what I did. It is a method for optimizing. I 
doubt there will be any acoustic difference between hammers that are laying on 
the rests and ones that are 2 mm above them.  However, there can be profound 
differences in how the instrument regulates.  At no time did I suggest 
minimizing the blow distance, but, rather, where the hammer must be in order to 
properly regulate.   

Again I wrote: 
>  if you want to reduce the aftertouch to
>a minumum, (which will be the fastest action), lower your hammers or raise
>your keydip, or a little of both.  You may then want to set your 
>let-off to just
>below the lower excursion limit of the string when the string has been struck
>as firmly as the performer is likely to play it.

Israel responds: 
>>Not on an old Erard. Too risky. You need a large safety factor. That 
all-wood action is not so rigid that you can do hair-trigger regulations.

      When I say reducing the aftertouch to a minimum, I am not suggesting 
any particular dimension, simply an approach which takes the particular action 
into consideration. It is often the case with the older pianos that the key 
travel is limited by case construction, and given the wear in the knuckles and 
hammers, something must be compromised.  Sometimes, if there is to be any 
aftertouch, at all, the hammers might have to be higher than optimum for a sforzando 
or forte response.  That is a cost of aging. 
    I have only regulated two of these Erards, and there was no problem with s
etting let-off to these specifications.  One of them was used by a Chopin 
fanatic, who likes to play hard.  We have had no problems. 
 
> Springs should be as strong as
>possible without being felt in the key upon hammer release.

>>That's 120 year old springs we are talking about - not much zing 
left... I doubt you'll be able to make the key "kick". Sometimes you 
are lucky to get any kind of lift on the hammer at all - I've had to 
settle for the hammer not dropping back... << 

        Yes, "as strong as possible" might mean simply holding the hammer in 
place, but that wasn't the case I had to deal with.  The actions worked fine 
with a slow gradual rise to the spring. One of them had very little hammer 
left, and there was certainly a feeling in the key when they were released when 
the springs were too strong.  The age of a spring doesn't necessarily reduce its 
capacity to "spring".  It may break, but if it is intact, I have always been 
able to strengthen them sufficiently to raise the hammers.  
 
  >>In short, you can take half the modern action regulation "optimizing" 
assumptions that you are used to, throw them in the toilet and then 
try and figure out how to make the damned thing work. << 

    My suggestions gave only a self-defining approach to setting any action 
dimensions to a workable level of consistency and response.  That is why I used 
words like "as possible" instead of giving a specific distance.  An Erard 
action, even with the wooden brackets, is capable of being regulated to a very 
high level of consistency, it just takes more work than a modern action.  
Regards,
  
Ed Foote RPT 
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html