[CAUT] Steinway sound

[hullfam5 at yahoo.com]

I took the "dig-in" description to refer to resistance rather than amount of key dip.  There is a feeling of control that comes with an acceptable level of weight/resistance.  Client input doesn't have to include tech terminology but still needs to be heard.  The challenge is how to physically introduce them to the options.
Bob Hull
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>
Sender: caut-bounces at ptg.org
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:50:37 
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Reply-To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound

It's not hogwash, it's observation.  You may not like the data but the it's
just data.  I didn't invent it.  

Client driven?  Most clients know nothing of leverage and such and would
never even consider it if it weren't presented.  Even using after the fact
client comments can be dangerous in terms of setting a standard.  Set up
anything that produces some uniformity after the client plays on a poorly
set up action that is uneven and they will react with enthusiasm.  But
compared to what?  We recently engaged in a conversation about just what the
pianist really feels (or hears) at the keyboard and what they respond to.  I
find myself being more and more careful about what that is and try and
differentiate between my perspective as a technician and the pianist's
viewpoint as a player.  Understanding the disconnect between technician and
player (good topic for a general article--I might write it someday),
approaching the piano from opposite sides of the coin is an important part
of all this and I constantly question whether my choices don't come too much
from the technician perspective and not enough from the player point of
view.  It's easy to go down the wrong path if you don't pay attention to
that.  You mention that one pianist preferred a medium light setting for
some repertoire--say, impressionistic (I don't know what it was but that
would make sense, or Scarlatti maybe).  How would they have reacted to a
piano that had medium high weight but had higher leverage, shallower dip,
and greater range of acceleration of the hammer?  What are they really
responding to?  For that repertoire perhaps with a lower leverage, deeper
dip set up they needed lighter.  But given a shallower dip, longer blow
maybe they would have preferred heavier?  Do we know?  Those are the kinds
of comparisons that need to be made.  You mention that a pianist wants
something they can "really dig into"?  What does that mean?  That they want
deeper dip?  When I think about that, in all my years doing this, I don't
think I've ever once had a pianist ask me for deeper dip (unless the piano
was simply not regulated properly or the dip had shallowed out due to wear).
However, I have had pianists comment, not infrequently, that they seem to
get buried in the keys and that is usually associated with actions that are
set up with dip that is in the 10.5 mm range (or beyond).  

Please don't take my comments as an indictment of "Stanwood Touch Design"
per se.  It wasn't meant that way.  You produce guidelines with what you see
are limits and it's up to the designers to follow that protocol or not.  But
just because you set a limit doesn't mean (I presume) that the target should
be that limit.  I realize that Steinway actions have been all over the place
and finding a standard is at best difficult.  My point was that the original
set up was fairly consistently targeted (even if not consistently achieved)
and that was with a higher ratio and lighter weight hammers.  Your limit for
dip might be 10.5 but I have seen actions set up using your methods with the
dip deeper in an attempt to achieve some associated low leverage targets,
remove maximum amounts of lead combined with relatively heavy hammers.  By
the original standard that would be "non Steinway".  My questions (and they
were really posed more as questions) was whether the trend in low ratios
with those particular goals is a good one or doesn't have some potential
down sides.  Personally speaking, I'm not sure that it is a good one and
that is in part because even though you might establish a lower limit,
someone will always want to test it and see if more isn't better.  An action
ratio of 5.3 (your system number) produces something that I think is
questionable in terms of performance and has other ramifications.  Even if
one achieves a 10.5 dip and compensates by "cramming" the blow (I'm not sure
what that term means but I assume it means to shorten it) there are
consequences to that in terms of repetition, power and tone (heavier hammers
in the treble section in particular) that one should also be examining.  

You make the statement "This SALA Steinway D had 1/4 high hammer Strike
Weights which give an appropriate Steinway Sound for concert stage".  Do
they?  Does that mean that a 1/4 low SW (not that familiar with the specific
numbers associated with your terms without going to the charts) would give
an inappropriate Steinway sound for the concert stage?  You're making an
assumption here and I'm not convinced.  Steinways from the 1920's and
earlier certainly had had hammers that were much lighter than 1/4 high.  Did
they produce an inappropriate sound for the concert stage?  I don't think
Rubenstein would have said that, or Horowitz.  

While a higher strike weight system may be appropriate for some piano
soundboards and scales (speaking of tone here) that require that type of
mass (and accompanying density), it may be inappropriate for others.  In the
case of Steinway in particular I'm not sure that the belly design/execution
has changed in such a way since the accepted use of lighter hammers (in the
early part of the 20th century) and higher ratios to warrant a change in the
approach.  In fact, the current Steinway belly with full diaphragmization
might arguably be even lighter and have greater internal velocity than
existed back in the 1920's.  That might argue for even a lighter hammer.  

My point in all this is not so much to offer answers but to raise the
questions I think we should be asking and not get caught up in trends that
may or not push us in a direction that when all things are considered is
really producing a better result.  

That being said, there's no question that I'm grateful to your commitment
and input to this end of the discussion over the years.  It's certainly
heightened my awareness of the issues.   

David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com


-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David
Stanwood
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 4:40 AM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound

Mr. Love,

In regards to your statement:

>I don't know about a "non-steinway" touch but the Stanwood system users
>sometimes push the lower limits of action ratios with the belief that if
low
>inertia is good, lower is even better. <snip>

This is hogwash. ;-)

The motivation to push the lower limits of action ratios is always 
client driven.  Precision Touch Design installers are trained to make 
a determinations based on qualitative (listening to the client and 
the piano) and quantitative (touch weight metrology) information. 
Then, using our collective experience and wisdom, we make a judgement 
as to the best combination of touch design parameters that will 
satisfy the client.  If pushing the limits makes them happy then 
we've succeeded.

Our limit for dip is 10.5mm.  If the so called traditional specs are 
to be sacrificed for low ratio in order to achieve aftertouch, then 
it should be in cramming the blow.

Extreme low ratios are not in the realm of "Steinway Touch".   I 
would characterize that as simply a firm solid touch that a 
professional pianist can really dig into.  This kind of touch has 
been produced by many variations of action ratio and hammer weights 
over the years.

SALA pianos (pianos with Stanwood Adjustable Leverage Action) are 
providing choice to the pianist and informative feedback to the piano 
designer.  We've only just begun to take data in Conservatories as to 
what the most preferred ratio settings are.  The Steinway D which we 
showcased at the PNWC in Seattle last year was played by three 
professional pianists during the conference and each preferred a 
medium heavy setting but one preferred a medium light setting for 
certain repertoire.

This SALA Steinway D had 1/4 high hammer Strike Weights which give an 
appropriate Steinway Sound for concert stage.  On the medium high 
setting the ratio would be 5.7 with a 41 Balance Weight (53 down 
weight with 12 friction).   On the Medium Light setting the ratio 
would be 5.3 with a 35 balance weight (47 down weight with 12 
friction).

David Stanwood

"Just trying to help"