[CAUT] Steinway sound

[David Love]

That may be (referring to the "dig in" comment below) but you can certainly
produce resistance with high ratio low strike actions just as easily as low
ratio high strike weight.  Arguably the sense of control with a longer blow
distance and shallower will be greater.  Take a simple teeter-totter in the
playground.  Move the fulcrum away from the person doing the lifting which
has the effect of lengthening their stroke and shortening the "liftees"
travel and then move the fulcrum the other way and shorten the lifters
stroke and lengthen the liftees travel.  Which one gives you a greater sense
of the weight of what's being lifted even if you adjust the weight being
lifted accordingly so that the same force will be required in each set up?
Now admittedly the piano system is a three lever system and not a single
lever system and I don't if that is an apt comparison but it's worth noting.


The challenge is in interpreting pianists "feelings" into specific designs.
Client input is very important but interpreting client input into specific
design parameters and teasing out variables is not always that easy or
obvious.  It's very easy to misinterpret what is actually being sensed and
what is actually responsible for what is being sensed.  While I certainly
jumped on the bandwagon of lower action ratios and higher strike weights
I've been slowly climbing down and that's been based on client input, blood,
sweat and tears (just like you David) and some unfortunate redo's as well.
I remain skeptical about this trend and tend to think that it was driven in
large part because of changes in hammer specs and the industry's slow
response with respect to modifying action leverages accordingly.   

With respect to David's other post (copied below).  Those are all
interesting data but I'm not sure what it actually means or what it's being
compared with.  It may well be that the belly of some 9'pianos require more
mass because you simply can't add enough acceleration reasonably to get to
the force level required (f=ma).  But that's not always the case and where
the belly of a particular piano allows you to achieve the requisite force by
either increasing the mass with less acceleration or less mass with more
acceleration then I'm simply not convinced that the mass side is necessarily
the better way to go.  When you combine that with what I am beginning to
believe is a lessening of control when you compare the two systems I'm even
less convinced that given the choice, the low leverage high strike weight
system is better.  Also, while my comments included the question about
concert instruments it was meant as a more general statement about the trend
which has carried over into smaller instruments where high strike weights
may be very inappropriate in terms of tonal requirements.  In those cases
that greater tonal output at hammer string runs the serious risk of becoming
simply more noise.  

There is another option worth exploring, in my view.  And that's a graduated
leverage and a steeper strike weight curve.  I am more and more inclined to
think that the hammer weight requirements in the treble don't change that
much from piano to piano and even in concert instruments a lighter weight
hammer with higher acceleration in the treble produces a clearer tone
without sacrificing power (what does power actually mean in the high
treble?) or having to find a reasonable way to get the hammer hard enough to
avoid high partial damping without it producing too much knock.  At the low
end of the piano (in a concert grand) arguably a more massive hammer may
have some benefit in some situations and with some bellies.  Yet with your
strike weight curves (as they are published) the weights at either end move
together--even though I recognize that range of SWs at the bass end is
higher than the range at the treble end.  So let's just assume that the
shape of the front weight curve is important (not sure it is but let's
assume it is).  In order to achieve that curve with a steeper strike weight
curve (say a curve that is created with note #1 at 14.5 grams SW and note
#88 at 4.5 grams SW, you would have to have a graduated ratio in the piano
with a lower ratio in the bass and a higher one in the treble.  You place
the mass at a point in the scale, then, where you think you need it.  While
that might produce some modest difference in the regulation specs as you
moved through the piano, as long as it graduated uniformly that might be ok.
The deeper dip in the bass where speed (playing speed) is less important
would be more tolerable.  The shallower dip in the upper treble where
playing speed is more important would benefit.  Would the pianist be
bothered by the gradual change in dip specs (or you could alter the blow
distance some to make the dip changes less--even though that affects
acceleration).  I'm talking about concert instruments here as the SW range
from top to bottom is more likely needed in that piano than, say, a Steinway
O.  

Driving all this, however, is what hammer produces the best quality tone for
a given situation in different parts of the piano and what are our ideal
regulation specs.  Periodically when on some path it's worth stopping and
looking around to see where you are and where you might be going.  I'm
stopping to look around because I see a problem in the direction this is
going and see executions that are routinely pushing the limits of what I
think is acceptable chasing this ideal of low action ratios which, by your
own design relationships, must be accompanied by higher strike weights.  I
see the issue of weight being given too much importance when I'm finding
that many pianists don't care that much about weight.  Moreover, I find that
most pianists (professional level) want things heavier (higher balance
weight) than we tend to default them to.  Further I see justification for
tonal outputs coming after the fact, not before, and the cart driving the
horse, meaning that people are putting leverage and action response ahead of
tone production and I think that's backwards.  A reexamination of how we set
our priorities is in order, I think, and hammer characteristics that produce
the optimum tone in each section of the piano should drive the action
leverage decisions (always with regulation specs in mind) and not the other
way around.  While I can't speak about you (David S.) personally with
respect to how you set priorities, I do see a trend with others who use your
system and in general and that's what I'm questioning.  

Apologies in advance for the length of this posting. Now I gotta go to woik.


David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com 


____________________________________________________


>Yes I would say in my professional opinion and experience that a 1/4 low SW
level would give an inappropriate sound for the concert stage. 
>I'm not making any assumption. It the result of blood, sweat, and tears and
years.  Much of it qualitative gut experience but I can offer one bit of
>quantitative result.  For thirty years I've provided pianos for a local
jazz concert series.  Early on I was into light hammers probably in the
range of >Top Low.  We had trouble getting enough mike signal out of the
piano without getting feedback.  When I learned how to up the hammer weights
to top >medium and into the high zone the microphone signals went way up and
our feedback problem disappeared.  So the actual measurable tonal energy
coming out >of the piano was much higher with the higher hammer weights.
This effect shows in the concert hall in a pianos ability to tonally fill
the hall and >also to compete with orchestral ensemble.  With light hammers
the tone can be beautiful but small.  Light hammers get lost in the
orchestral shuffle.  >Upping the ratio doesn't make up for it in my
experience.  I can also give hard data on world standards for hammer
weights.  In the '90's I had an >opportunity to measure strike weights on a
number of Hamburg Steinway D's.  The weight levels are all in the mid high
zone with a 2 gram spread in >variation.  I can provide a graph of all the
data if you or anyone else in on this discussion wants but I'm a little busy
this morn.

>David Stanwood 



-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David
Stanwood
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 5:39 AM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound

Bob Hull wrote:

>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,

Yes it was referring to dynamic touchweight-  actual playing force 
which we don't have a way of measuring.  We can only associate 
various combinations of hammer weight, leverage, key weighing and 
voicings with dynamic qualities of touch that the players report to 
us.   I don't ask clients to understand leverage or any other 
technical concept, unless they ask.  I do ask them to play the piano 
and tell us what they feel. Feelings are always on the mark.  I think 
pianist all the credit for giving us direction in our work.  It's up 
to us to figure out what they are saying.

The adjustable leverage action certainly is becoming an invaluable 
tool in my shop.  Clients can play my demo piano at various settings 
and tell me what they feel.  It's incredibly helpful in giving me 
direction in how to set up their customized action.

David Stanwood