<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"> <div class="WordSection1"> Richard, Dale, David,  and List,<o:p></o:p> I can’t echo Dale Erwin’s assessment of Stanwood inspired action work strongly enough.  His contributions have elevated our work to much higher levels. Gould would certainly have been able to connect more readily with instruments these days with hammer weights driven by proper action ratios. David was here at Florida State in April and installed  a SALA in a Steinway B that will be placed in a piano seminar room in the fall for data collection.  He worked with the graduate piano technology students here who are well versed in his metrology methods and measuring protocols.  The SALA will be a wonderful pedagogical tool for piano tech students here as they introduce it to literally dozens of pianists.   It is exciting to note that these young techs will never know a time when actions did not function well.  They have the tools to analyze and the 3D thinking to build successful actions.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Great to be back on this list!<o:p></o:p> Anne <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Dale Erwin Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 10:45 AM To: caut@ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Glenn Gould<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Hi Richard  Unequivocally yes. The crux of Davids Stanwoods work is fundamentally the balance between Hammer weight and action ratios. When the light went on for me some years ago now, my action work improved dramatically and the control over the process really builds confidence.    In fact as a result...I now teach a class called "Action ratios and hammer weights"  I don't think its uncommon these days for any tech doing this type of custom action balancing to hear comments like "I've never played any action this good" "It feels so good" "I can do things I've not been able too before" "Is this really my action" etc, etc. Its very rewarding.  We have all been the beneficiaries of all that research and measuring he did. So yes, I think Glen could find something he like these days Thanks to David S.<o:p></o:p> <div> Dale Erwin... RPT Mason & Hamlin/Steinway/U.S pianos <a href="http://www.Erwinspiano.com">www.Erwinspiano.com</a> 209-577-8397 <tt> </tt> <tt>  </tt><o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> -----Original Message----- From: Richard West <<a href="mailto:rwest1@unl.edu">rwest1@unl.edu</a>> To: caut <<a href="mailto:caut@ptg.org">caut@ptg.org</a>> Sent: Fri, May 18, 2012 6:11 am Subject: Re: [CAUT] Glenn Gould<o:p></o:p> <div id="AOLMsgPart_0_934a8865-c47a-45b2-81a1-92a4f1501dfd"> <pre style="background:white"><tt>I recently read one of the better piano tech related books titled Romance on <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>Three Legs.  It's an excellent book about Glen Gould's search for the "perfect" <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>piano.  He never found it.  He was also very eccentric.  But he was stuck with <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>the then-current trend toward the very heavy actions Steinway was putting out in <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>the 60's and 70's.  It was almost painful to read about his struggles and the <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>lack of resources.  I presume that these days Glenn could have found his perfect <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>piano.  Given the variety of parts choices and technical knowledge and expertise <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>among our finest piano technicians the extremely light action he wanted could <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>have been within reach.  Is that a fair assumption?  I'm just curious.  <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt><o:p> </o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>Richard West<o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt><o:p> </o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt><o:p> </o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>On May 18, 2012, at 3:29 AM, David Stanwood wrote:<o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt><o:p> </o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> Hi Denis,<o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> I re-graphed your graph and created a graph showing SW zones:<o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> <a href="http://stanwoodpiano.com/SteinwayD-StockNY-2012-05-17.pdf" target="_blank">http://stanwoodpiano.com/SteinwayD-StockNY-2012-05-17.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> I created a specification for "least work", that is to say the <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> closest possible average of the existing Strike Weights.  For this <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> set of hammers the result is a good fit for projection in a large <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> hall.  It starts at curve #9 - TopMedium and crosses up to curve #11 <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> - 1/2 High at note #44.  These hammers are not unusually heavy for <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> Steinway D.  although there are plenty of examples of much lighter <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> sets coming out of Steinway NY over the years, some as light as 1/2 <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> medium, and I've seen a few examples of heavier sets recently. <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> Measure, Measure, Measure is the rule here.<o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> Your Touch Weight Metrology analysis data is important and brings up <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> the core issue with rehammering any piano.  What is a good ratio <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> match for the hammer weight? (or vise versa)  In this case the hammer <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> weight is the priority for full projection in a big hall.  Your <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> analysis by sampling Strike Weight Ratio across the keyboard <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> indicates an average ratio of 5.9.  This is a problem.  If you want <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> to go with the recommended Strike Weights in the High Zone the <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> dynamic feel of the action will be too heavy with this mismatch.<o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> I can report directly from experience on this.  David Andersen has a <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> Steinway D with SALA (Stanwood Adjustable Leverage Action).  We've <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> been showing piano this around LA and also brought it to Seattle for <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> a conference.  The Strike Weights on this piano were set at curve #10 <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> - 1/4 high with a median ratio of Strike Weight Ratio of 5.5.  A <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> number of what I would call - Strong Male Professional Pianists <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> tested out this piano and settled on a touch setting of #4, (#1 being <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> lightest and #5 heaviest.)  #4 SALA setting corresponds to a ratio of <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> 5.8.  So your piano with a slightly heavier weight level with a <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> higher ratio of 5.9 would feel too heavy for these strong fellos by <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> this reckoning.  You want to create an action that has broad appeal <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> to visiting pianists.  So 5.9 will narrow the field tremendously.  By <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> another note Andersen's SALA D piano, Lang Lang performed on it and <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> preferred SALA setting #1 which corresponds to a ratio of 5.2.<o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> I'm assuming you have current Steinway parts with a Knuckle Core <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> radius of 17mm.<o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> The solution for you might be to work with the capstan line to reduce <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> the ratio level to a more average appeal.  I recommend 5.5.  This is <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> also the standard established by studies of Hamburg Steinways which <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> showed average ratio of 5.5 and average Strike Weights that closely <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> match what you have in this example of Stock NY Steinway D Hammers.<o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> If you are not confident in moving a capstan line then I advise <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> seeking help from someone skilled in this.<o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> Hope this helps,<o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> <o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt>> David STanwood<o:p></o:p></tt></pre> <pre style="background:white"><tt><o:p> </o:p></tt></pre> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>