[CAUT] 1850's Pleyel Grand

[David Love]

On such a piano I think an argument can be made for very light hammers (and
soft too) to go with the very low tension scale, which is, I think, mostly
responsible for the broad color pallete that you have alluded to.  A high
ratio with a very light hammer will allow you to not only keep the action
very light but will keep the key dip very shallow which is more in keeping
with how that piano was designed.  

David Love
davidlovepianos at comcast.net 
www.davidlovepianos.com

-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Fred
Sturm
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:17 AM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] 1850's Pleyel Grand

Hi Ric,
	It was Fred, not Ed. I should clarify that I am not arguing against

David Stanwood's methods, which work for whatever ratio you choose. I  
am arguing against a tendency to get stuck with some default standard  
that then gets applied to every piano. I think there is a lot to be  
said for McMorrow's light hammer arguments, for example. A light  
hammer propelled at a high ratio will have the potential for a greater  
tonal spectrum because it can reach greater velocity (more felt  
compression on impact), and the player can shade the velocity more.  
Obviously this depends on the player and lots of other factors.
	But I would like to see more variety of method, and since the  
manufacturers seem to be pretty much converging, that leaves it to us  
techs <g>.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu