I couldn't disagree with what you have said. Chris Solliday ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net> To: "'College and University Technicians'" <caut at ptg.org> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Lighter Touchweight > Chris: > > Yes. When topics like this are posted there is a presumption of expertise > that can be dangerous and I admit this may be a mistake on my part. > However, many of the options proposed are very dubious, in my view, and > should be able to be addressed through a careful analysis and questioning of > the pianist. But it does require some very specific knowledge. Raising the > hammer line is probably a good thing to do in this case in order to try and > tease out some of the other variables. It's fast, won't cost much and is > easily reversible. It will, in fact, reduce the touchweight, or at least > the friction at the beginning of the key stroke by placing the rotation more > immediately on the vertical than the horizontal. If there is already > adequate aftertouch it will make that excessive and raising the hammers too > high off the rest cushion can have negative effects on repetition (though I > think that piano has an adjustable strip). So I don't have a problem with > that at least as an interim move. Where I have a problem is with > suggestions about making the piano brighter, drilling holes in wippens, > changing damper timing (unless it really is picking up way too early) and > similar approaches that are time consuming and costly relative to their > chance for success. The customer may not want the piano brighter, drilling > holes in wippens is very time consuming and really doesn't accomplish > anything significant, and changing the damper timing is only relevant when > playing without the pedal and alters control of legato playing due to > earlier shutoff on release--not a good trade-off in my view. > > Neither would I presume that just because 52down/30up is something that many > of us would "kill for" that it isn't something that is too heavy for this > particular pianist. This week I am going to assess a touchweight complaint > (too heavy) after the current technician told the customer "It's fine, > that's the way it's supposed to be". It may be, but she doesn't like it and > I have a new customer. And after this posting I'm on my way to a very good > concert level pianist who has a D and for whom I modified the action to > achieve her own personal goal of 26 BW, yes that's 36 down and 16 up +/-. > It wasn't easy to accept that was what she really wanted and harder yet to > achieve that in a way that didn't compromise other aspects of performance, > but she loves it. What should I say, "that's not how it's supposed to be"? > > > While customers are sometimes mistaken in their perceptions and similarly > mistaken in their description of problems (how many ways can you spell > "sticking keys"), they are often right in what they want for themselves and > we are usually better off listening than imposing our own sense of how > things should be or making random guesses about what they "really" mean or > what's likely to fool them. > > So in this case, if experiments need to be done in order to determine just > what they want, I would certainly argue for the most expedient and least > cost methods that are easily reversible and don't substitute one problem for > another. If the original poster lacks the expertise to really get to the > heart of the matter by careful questioning and analysis, then the best thing > to do might be to employ someone who is and who can get it right with the > minimum number of false starts. > > 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 Chris > Solliday > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:49 AM > To: College and University Technicians > Subject: Re: [CAUT] Lighter Touchweight > > David, > It could just be that because this action is just "new" and "crisp" and > snappy (30 up) and was different before or his piano at home is worn out and > light to begin with that this man SAYS it feels heavier. Who knows what > these guys mean on a cursory run over of the piano. I agree with you David, > one should know alot more before proceeding. Although I don't think there is > any harm in reducing blow distance slightly and thereby increasing > aftertouch slightly to see if it makes a difference in this guy's > perception. Something that is easily reversible is a good way to find out > more about what someone means in a short amount of time in my experience. > But to be sure we really need more info here to give accurate suggestions. > Since we are dealing with someone who is unable to provide much more, the > "old tricks" maybe his only avenue of reality. > Chris Solliday > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net> > To: "'College and University Technicians'" <caut at ptg.org> > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:24 PM > Subject: Re: [CAUT] Lighter Touchweight > > > > All these things should indeed be checked out. However, I'm seeing a > > tendency in this thread to address the customer complaint of too heavy an > > action by pursuing certain perceptual tricks (adding dip, making the piano > > brighter, etc.) which may end up to be chasing the untamed ornithoid, as > it > > were. Granted, there is not quite enough information in the original post > > to make a real diagnosis, but assuming the voicing is where they want it, > > the regulation is correct for that action (increasing the dip may result > in > > excess aftertouch and increasing the blow distance to compensate will only > > increase the resistance at the outset of the keystroke), and damper timing > > is correct (which they can also test by seeing if the action still feels > > heavy when they play with the sustain pedal engaged), then it just might > be > > that the problem is as the customer reports--the action is too heavy for > > them. If that's the case, then the choices are 1.) add lead if the front > > weights are not already too high so as to adversely affect inertia--though > > reducing the DW by four grams means a small lead about halfway between the > > balance rail and key front which is not likely to adversely impact > > inertia--and assuming, as it sounds, that there is adequate upweight. 2.) > > Take weight off the hammers but the amount of weight needed to be removed > > will affect the tone and is probably too much and too sloppy a way to go > > anyway. 3.) Adjust the leverage which will lower the touchweight, have the > > benefit of increasing the dip without increasing the blow distance, allow > > you to possibly remove lead which will lower the inertia and possibly (in > my > > experience with those pianos) put the capstan/wippen flange center line in > a > > better place. > > > > Some more in depth analysis and questions to the customer are in order, to > > be sure, but I would be cautious about wasting the customer's time and > money > > by assuming that they can be tricked into thinking the action is lighter > by > > pursuing some more obscure avenue to address the problem. While that may > > work once in awhile, my experience says that when a customer says the > action > > is too heavy and the piano is otherwise in good order, most of the time, > > it's too heavy--at least for them. The danger in going this other route > is > > that you may end up with a piano that is still heavy but now is too bright > > and poorly regulated on top of it. > > > > Getting to the heart of the matter can usually be done with some in depth > > questions and discussion with the customer combined with some accurate > > measurements which will better outline what exists as well as the > available > > options. > > > > 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 > James > > Ellis > > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:14 AM > > To: caut at ptg.org > > Subject: Re: [CAUT] Lighter Touchweight > > > > I have been reading the mail, reluctant to weigh in, but now I will. > > > > Jeff, the static measurements you mention look good to me, and you say the > > friction is low. I would be very slow about making any drastic changes > > like moving capstans, or anything like that. Don Mannino and Alan McCoy > > make some good points. Ric Brekne is correct too when he says your window > > for damper lift timing is narrow. But if damper lift is significantly too > > early, that will contribute to the heavy feel, especially if the upstop > > rail to too high, and the pianist feels the damper rebound on the keys. > > Tight damper guide bushings and tight underlevers will also contribute. > > > > What is too often not understood is that two different parameters are at > > play here - "static" and "dynamic". Static has to do with those key > weight > > measurements. Dynamic has to do with the inertia in the whole system. > The > > two are related, but not the same thing by any means. > > > > In this particular case, if you lighten the down-weight very much, you may > > be in trouble with insufficient up-weight, and you may not be addressing > > the actual problem either. > > > > I'm not sure there is a problem. It just may be that the pianist wants > > something that is not proctical to provide, without giving up something > > else he wants to keep. > > > > Sincerely, Jim Ellis > > > > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC