Richard Brekne wrote: > It seems to me that Stanwoods approach is what I will call a "weight > priority" approach. That is to say that certain component weighting factors > can take precedence over geometrical concerns. You hit it on the nose, Richard. I took David's all day class at the PTG convention in July, and while I'm very glad I did, that is exactly what occurred to me. At the same convention, however, I ran across an action weighting system which absolutely blew me away. It uses adjustable paired magnets and permits action charactersitics that ought to be impossible. It is called the Magnetic Balanced Action and is the brainchild of Evert Snel and Hans Velo (Netherlands). It is available through Fazioli and was mounted in a Fazioli at the convention. Although what drew the most attention at the convention was the capability to change the touchweight of the instrument uniformly in about 30 seconds with a few adjustments from the front of the action, a more significant feature, in my opinion is that it completely eliminates the need for key leads, and therefore vastly improves the inertial characteristics. It also makes the hammer weight independent of the key weight, which allows you to select or even design hammers according to other criteria. Prefer more inertia? No problem. Just add weights on both sides of the balance hole or put them in the front and reduce the strength of the magnets by turning the regulating screws to which they are mounted. Once the system is installed, the entire action can be touch regulated to perfect uniformity without any disassembly. No, I don't sell the system. Wish I did. This doesn't directly address the issue of weight vs. geometry (I consider distance part of geometry), but it allows geometry, weight and inertia considerations to be addressed independently, with relatively little regard for their interaction. Paul S. Larudee, RPT Richmond, CA
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC