[CAUT] 1850's Pleyel Grand

[Richard Brekne]

Hi Doug

Grin.... I can see we have variant opinions about touch and sound in the 
Seattle area still. You do indirectly raise an important point. And that 
is making ever attempt to be sure you are doing what the customer wants. 
Also, Not projecting your own views and perspectives on the customer. 
This is a bit more difficult to do then perhaps most of us are aware of. 
Our own views sit pretty deeply and despite our best attempts at being 
objective we do clearly display our own operating parameters.  Myself, I 
have stuck pretty close to medium heavy hammers for many years now. Top 
mediums by Stanwood.  But if the actions ratio is to high to begin with, 
then I conform to the action most often and lower my hammer weight.

This said.. the present discussion about high ratios and older actions / 
pianos led in a direction of application in modern pianos and I find 
some interesting thoughts there myself. I do not subscribe to the idea 
that any particular instrument configuration dictates any particular 
type of match in hammer weight. Tho to be sure my own personal 
preferences will go pretty much along party lines. Still, in the final 
analysis the response of the piano to the touch of the finger is such a 
personal matter and tastes vary so very very widely that I have long 
since given up trying to set any kind of definition on what kind of tone 
is <<good tone>>.

I'd also like to touch on another point before closing.  In the many 
discussions about action ratios and hammer weights we are almost always 
focused totally on weight and distance issues of the action as they 
relate to its performance.  But the is actually another issue, perhaps 
of more importance then the other two... but at least equally so. It is 
the issue of the speed ratio of parts.  In an action with a high key 
ratio, the whippen and its parts, the hammer... everything moved by the 
capstan will travel farther for the same key dip as an action with a low 
key ratio.  This means really that these same parts will travel equal 
distance with less key motion.  Or ... said another way.  In the same 
amount of milliseconds it takes to depress the key the parts will move 
farther... i.e. faster.  The same consideration comes into play whenever 
and however one changes the action ratio.  Moving the whippen rail in or 
out for example... effects the travel of the the jack in both its arcs. 

Speed response... or how much movement the action has for a given key 
motion, is an expression of control.  And again... preferences are going 
to vary.  A higher ratio will narrow the window of control in one 
perspective by allowing for less scope in hammer speed for available key 
speed.  In an opposite perspective for a given pianist... this is a plus 
as his / her technique may benefit from exactly this response.

One of the best contributions anyone anywhere has made to our common 
knowledge base is Stanwood's assembling of statistical data on how 
actions are set up. Even tho this data is confined to his weight 
perspective... it does give some insight into the general consensus of 
touch preferences.  And the data base is large enough to be taken more 
then seriously.  Still.. there are always significant numbers of 
outlayers... and the interval of confidence his data yeilds that any 
given pianist will fall within the norm is actually fairly low. 

Its all very fascinating IMB.  And as long as we all strive to get the 
result the individual pianist is after... and help each other along in 
the doing... well... we cant really do any better then our very best at 
any given time now can we ?

Cheers and thanks for bringing up the points !
RicB







    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