Action Geometry

[Don_Remote_Mannino@yca.ccmail.compuserve.com]

     Richard West Wrote:

     >Now that we have some manufacturer reps on line . . .
     >Are all 9' concert grand actions created equal when looked at from a
     geometric perspective?  In other words, can there be many geometric
     variations to get the most power, repetition, and control out of an
     action given a 9' length and less concern about the economics of
     building the "ideal" piano than a smaller grand.  Secondly, if there
     is an ideal, can we in the field really recognize that any one
     particular action is not up to par.<

     First, let's clarify the role of "Manufacturer's reps." Most
     manufacturer's reps are not action designers. Although thorough
     knowledge of piano design and operation are certainly required, I know
     that I would have to get some actions out, or call up some CAD
     drawings, and measure things again to know in depth what our factory is
     making.  Clearly "pianoguru" is an exception, as he really does do
     design work, so his replies should have more authority to them.  I am a
     "service manager" though, so maybe everybody should take everything I
     say with the proverbial grain of salt.

     With that disclaimer over with (aren't I good at those things?), let
     me try to answer your questions with the perspective of having been
     involved with resolving problems in a proposed grand action design at
     Young Chang a few years ago.

     I don't believe there is any such thing as "ideal action geometry." As
     with most aspects of piano design, the action must be designed by
     balancing the tradeoffs.  The discussion a few weeks back about
     knuckle skin nap is a good example - either direction of the nap is
     correct, depending on the rest of the action. If you set the nap
     against the jack letoff you gain power and perhaps repetition, but you
     sacrifice some control in soft playing. High quality knuckle skin
     helps this, as does some Teflon powder or similar lubrication.

     Similarly, the geometry of the action involves tradeoffs. As has been
     noted here before, very few if any new grand actions (meaning none I
     have checked) are built with the letoff taking place on the spread
     line, even though this is best for control and minimal friction. Why
     is this? We can all talk about improving the action by installing a
     smaller knuckle and raising the capstan, but really we have just
     adjusted the tradeoffs in another direction from the action designer's
     intentions.

     What matters most is that the action geometry be within an acceptable
     _range_ for good performance, and that the action be as consistent as
     possible throughout the scale with whatever geometry and mass it is
     built to. I must not leave out that friction levels are extremely
     important, but the correct friction in any given action varies some
     according to the mass and geometry, also.  And evenness is paramount.

     I have examined and evaluated a few actions that had been
     "customized," or in which the geometry had been "fixed," and they did
     indeed perform well. But in addition to being "improved," the
     technicians involved also had dramatically evened the action out.  In
     my opinion this was more important than the geometry improvements or
     reduction of mass that was achieved.  Understand me here - I'm not
     saying that the other improvements (mass / geometry) didn't matter,
     but that their contributions to the end result were smaller than all
     the other "evenness" improvements.

     Now, back to the ideal design matter. There is no one action geometry
     that is ideal and will satisfy all pianists. Equally good performance
     can be achieved with different designs, but the "feel" of the actions
     will be different. Some actions are designed for more spread than
     others, some have longer jack tenders than others, etc. As long as the
     basic ratios are maintained, these are all acceptable.  Even an
     improperly built action will usually perform to _someone's_ liking.

     Finally, consider this. Take 20 Steinway Ds and prep them to the max.
     Equalize the friction, smooth the graduation of mass, correct geometry
     problems (as much as possible given uneven string heights), and voice
     the pianos as closely as possible.  Now get 50 top pianists to
     evaluate the actions. Will they agree? No, I don't think so. No matter
     how fine one piano is, it will never be right for all of the pianists.
     Or even 20% of the pianists.  If someone with much experience at
     Steinway Hall reads this, maybe they could comment as to whether
     experience has proved this out.

     If pianists don't agree on different examples of one design, how then can
     anyone define one ideal action?

     Here's an ad for Renner Co, for whom I do not work. The main reason,
     IMHO, that their actions are so well respected and therefore used in
     more expensive instruments from many manufacturers, is because they
     control their manufacturing carefully enough to achieve great
     evenness.  The Renner actions used by manufacturers are not all the
     same, so the geometry has nothing to do with it. The quality and
     consistency are the reasons, and the marketing goes along with it (If
     brand X does it, then we'd better too!).  Personally I agree with
     Frank Emerson (if I may be so bold). I'd rather spend the extra money
     having our in-house actions recieve the requisite added care demanded
     in the large pianos than pay the added cost of buying and importing
     actions from Germany. I believe this approach works well for Yamaha -
     put the high end pianos in a different factory, and use the most
     experienced technicians to build them and finish them.
     Unfortunately, though, my company does not sell pianos with "Mannino"
     on the fallboard, so it's not my choice.  Besides, the Renner action
     _is_ excellent.

     I have "maxed out" many actions from most major manufacturers.  Action
     design differences and performance differences have always been
     important to me, so I have tried my best to learn how to get the most
     from each action, and learn why it feels the way it feels. I have been
     convinced that, given reasonable competence in design and manufacturing
     (meaning most pianos available today), any action once tweaked
     appropriately will perform at the top levels demanded by excellent
     pianists.  Only individual taste will remain to give preferences between
     pianos, according to the feel of the action and how the action allows
     the pianist to create the tone desired.

     Let's see now, did I actually answer the questions?

     Don_Mannino@yca.ccmail.compuserve.com