There are probably many things that one can let go of if you are boiling it down to essential versus non essential. Friction in the flange may be something that is less important than some other thing but then the same argument could be made for trying to achieve a uniform balance weight, smooth strike weight, lead pattern that is more located more toward the balance rail or any other refinement that while not in and of itself being the make or break issue, collectively contribute to a better performing action. But the conversation wasn't really about how to prioritize, it was whether flange friction is a component of touchweight dynamics that can make a difference even if it might not be something that jumps out at you as obvious when you put your fingers on the key. That's true of most things. When I sit down and noodle around on a piano, assuming nothing is grossly off the scale, I can't tell you whether the strike weight curve is smooth, the balance weight is uniform, the friction is consistent, nor can I tell the relative contributions of weight versus friction, at least not without some measurement verification. But put two pianos side by side in which one action has meticulously paid attention to all these details versus one that is basically in the ballpark (assuming equal regulation) and I can certainly tell the difference. Similarly, put two actions together in which one has 3 grams of friction in the flange and the other has 0 I could probably feel a difference as well--I had a recent experience with a customer in which that very thing turned out to be a significant source of dissatisfaction. Granted, some pianists may prefer the very low friction feel while others may not (I think I tried to make that point earlier along with the fact that some pianists don't seem to notice much that is wrong with their actions) but the merits of trying to achieve a certain level of flange friction are worth discussing, it seems to me, because they do impact performance both in terms of feel and in terms of tone. I think both of those have been amply demonstrated. So just as uneven flange pinning resulting in uneven friction through the action would be undesirable, one can make an argument for uniform friction at some level other than zero as a desirable target yielding palpable results. How one chooses the level of friction might very well depend on things like action leverage and strike weight (as Don Mannino suggested), repetition spring consequences and the like. But even though flange friction is essentially a moving target (just like tuning and voicing) I still believe it's worth addressing along with the necessary compensations that those choices entail. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Fred Sturm Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 10:26 AM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] F..riction On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Susan Kline wrote: > History lesson, please? When did zero friction in hammers start to > seem desirable? Late 18th century, the piano of Mozart and Beethoven, Those axles have near zero friction. As did the keys (no bushings). And there were no intermediate levers with joints and interfaces to produce friction, only the escapement, which had far less friction than the current knuckle/jack arrangement. And pianists were quite capable of playing expressively on those instruments. A more cogent question might be when and why did friction in hammershank/flanges start to be considered desirable and why. Certainly a large part of the answer has to do with firmness of the felt. Clearly there is loss of power and focus when the bushing felt is spongy or there is wobble that you can feel when testing the flange. If you re-pin a standard bushing with standard methods to 0-1 gm, it will almost certainly be wobbly. And it will become more so as the felt packs with wear. So a relatively high friction makes sense as a starting point, for standard technical work. (Perhaps it is somewhat different in manufacture, where methods involve a sizing pin and a wetting agent, producing a reasonably predictable firmness of the final product). Over the years, I have asked a lot of technicians who focus largely on concert work for their view on hammerflange friction. Every one of them has said they don't care if the hammer swings 10 times as long as it is firm, that that aspect is very low on their priority list. And over the years that has sunk in and become part of my mindset. The experiences I have had in re-pinning whole sets of shanks have shown me that the difference is on the level of maybe just being suggestibility. Is there _really_ more control? Is the tonal spectrum _really_ more focused or whatever? I don't know. I'm not sure it made a difference. Going back a year later, sometimes a couple weeks later, I would find that the friction had dropped. Had the control or tone changed? Couldn't prove it by me. OTOH, when I focus on refined travel and square of hammers, level strings and good mating, and refined let off, drop and aftertouch, WOW, that does make a difference perceptible to me and to my customers. So since there is only so much time, and money to pay for that time, I tend to drop re-pinning for friction to a point pretty low on the totem pole. And when I re-pin, I focus more on a firm bushing with lubrication than on a frictional spec. This is not to say that we don't need _some_ friction in a modern action, but exactly where, how much, and why is, well, debatable. My purpose in raising the issue, presenting a different perspective, is to try to get people to have more of an open mind on the subject, rather than rely on some rule of thumb or intellectual construct. Certainly it seems clear that the virtuoso pianists of the world have adapted quite well to Permafree over the past three decades, so it is probably not a disaster <G>. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm at unm.edu
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC