On Feb 18, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Greg Graham wrote: > At the MARC two years ago (and other conventions since), David > Stanwood > conducted experiments in a classroom demonstrating his variable > action ratio > balance rail setup in a Mason and Hamlin grand. He had two or three > technician-pianists play the piano with a low ratio (5:1), then play > the same > thing with a high ratio (6:1). Same hammers, same voicing, just the > balance > point on the keystick changed. Yes, this experimentation is VERY valuable, allowing that one variable to be changed without changing anything else. When I played David's piano a couple years ago, it was immediately obvious that the higher ratio yielded a steeper voicing gradient: same difference in touch gave an increased difference in tonal color. This was also obvious sitting in the back of the room during a class where a couple people played it. I knew _immediately_ which ratio was in use. Really astounding, but in line with what I had come to believe based on experience with various pianos, together with some theoretical thought. The difference lies in acceleration. Now this is particularly important as we look at the history of pianos and hammers: with a higher ratio, a softer hammer will have a "higher" top end (the felt will compress more, the tone will have more high partials). When you choose to go for a heavier hammer, as we all know Steinway did during the 20th century, the high ratio becomes a struggle for the fingers. So the ratio was reduced to compensate (eventually, after adding lead weights was an obvious dead end), with the side effect that acceleration was also reduced. Now, the softer hammer felt simply didn't have the punch at the top end of the spectrum it used to. What to do? Short story, add hardeners. This explanation makes a lot of sense to me, and also avoids some of the confusion and contradictions I see in much of the conversation about these matters. One school of thought holds, almost religiously, that any hardener in any hammer is necessarily evil, citing as evidence that in the "good old days" they didn't use it. Maybe they didn't, but it was a different animal: a significantly lighter hammer, at a considerably higher ratio. Apply the same lighter and softer hammer to today's action, and it sounds like crap, doesn't do the job. The same is true about applying a heavier hammer of equal softness, IMO. It just doesn't do the job. It would be interesting to find out what the lighter and softer hammer at higher ratio would sound like in an instrument of today. (I don't know how much the belly has changed as part of that mix.) Regards, Fred Sturm fssturm at unm.edu "Since everything is in our heads, we had better not lose them." Coco Chanel
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC