Hi, all. I can't leave this one untouched. I, and several other NW techs, have plenty of experience "un-educating" pianos for dissatisfied clients. It's quite expensive. I don't want at all to get into any bashing or disrespect, BUT hammers that are too light produce a very monochromatic tone, actually. Penetrating and constricted. At least on Steinway boards. And the actions are actually quite a lot of work for a good pianist. They don't help the hand in the way that more traditional preparations do. Just because a little lighter hammer is often appreciated doesn't mean that a much lighter one is also good. As in so many things in our profession, there is a range around an optimum, and different folks like things a bit different. For my money, the bigger hammers have more tonal potential, but as they get bigger, they get to be too much work. It's easy to forget how subtle and complex the relationship between the hand and the ear is--the one that the piano connects so satisfyingly. Doug Wood On Nov 28, 2007, at 7:16 AM, Fred Sturm wrote: > 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 > > On Nov 28, 2007, at 1:06 AM, Richard Brekne wrote: > >> Hi Ed. >> >> I agree totally with your points about action re-design using >> Stanwood principles. I have made similar comment several times. I >> find his methods absolutely superb for balancing an existing >> system, and highly recommend the full 9 yards when it comes to >> that bit. But I choose to look at any redesign of the actions >> ratio from the actions geometric perspective. There is a lot going >> on besides just weight. The speed of parts seems always to be >> totally overlooked in ratio discussions. I also agree with your >> points about variety in actions... tho I must confess for most >> jobs I opt for a set of top medium SW curve hammers if the ratio >> is low enough. >> >> Still, I'm very interested in the whole variety of belly and >> scaling perspectives available from history. Everyone today seems >> to opt for a grain direction that goes very close to parallel to >> the bridge, with the basic idea of the ribs being the support for >> downbearing in some sense or another...and hence needing to >> themselves be alligned more or less perpendicular to the bridge. >> There has been almost no discussion of how alignment of these can >> affect stiffness to mass ratio and how that can in turn be used to >> approach different tonal desires in different parts of the scale. >> Taking that a few large steps further.... I want very much to >> understand better how much more radical grain directions were >> meant to function...what they were after, what reservations and >> compromises they were forced to face. Perhaps there is some worth >> following some of these early lines of thinking further down their >> respective roads. >> >> One thing that goes again and again in these earlier instruments. >> They were not meant to be hugely loud affairs. Instruments were >> often meant to be far more ... well.. portable in a sense. By >> that I mean that you would expect a piano concert to be in a very >> intimate setting with a room in which allowed for a much different >> kind of instrument then the modern grand for the music being played. >> >> Cheers >> RicB >> >> >> >> Hi Ric, >> I'll just reiterate a bit of the point I was trying to make: it >> isn't >> just the difference in sound produced by the belly and scaling >> (though that >> is very important). It is also the difference in response felt >> by the >> pianist. I find certain tendencies of many who do "action re- >> design" >> following "Stanwood principles" rather disturbing. There is often a >> knee-jerk decision to go for, say, a "5.5 action ratio," with a >> corresponding decision to go for fairly heavy hammers. The heavy >> hammers are >> chosen because of a prejudice towards "wanting more fundamental" or >> something of that sort, and then the ratio tags along since >> otherwise you >> will have too much mass and corresponding inertia. Result: an even >> vanilla >> spectrum of pianos, rather than the variety that used to be so >> inspiring. >> I am very much in favor of having an array of hammer weight and >> action >> ratio to choose from. I suppose some will say that has to be >> matched >> to the >> belly and scaling, and probably they are at least somewhat correct. >> Though I >> understand that early (late 19th century) Steinway had heavy >> board and >> scaling with much lighter hammers than today. I don't think >> there is >> anywhere near a complete understanding of the interactions of >> all these >> things. >> At any rate, I am just speaking up for retaining, or at least >> considering retaining, high action ratio where it is found. Which >> does, of >> course, mean matching hammer mass to make it work. >> And you say the customer pretty much wants it the way it is, >> so this >> "advice" isn't going to make any difference. But I thought I'd air >> the ideas >> a bit anyway. >> Regards, >> Fred Sturm >> University of New Mexico >> > > > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC