METHOD

[Bill Ballard]

At 12:28 AM -0400 7/1/00, A440A@AOL.COM wrote:
>Brian writes:
><<  Different people have slightly different methods, but it will be
>something like adding or subtracting punchings (with the 'spacer' in place)
>until at the bottom of the key stroke, the jack is just making contact with
>the letoff button.  >>

>Greetings,
>I like to set my aftertouch by using the fall of the hammer from the
>jack, rather than the first contact with the let-off button.  The latter
>is too easily confused with the drop leather making contact.

I agree. Setting aftertouch specifically means regulating the key's travel
after the jack has escaped the knuckle. The latter referred to would
seemingly add to this the key's travel from the beginning of escapement,
something adjusted by the jack/knuckle alignment (given of course a
reasonably accurate means for measuring this segment of the key stroke).

>    A maximum of .050" is my limit for aftertouch, but that doesn't tell the
>whole story.  Consistancy comes from the amount of pressure that you use to
>determine this dimension.  A firmer pressure is more consistant, so keep in
>mind what you are doing.  Using a .050" spacer and very firm pressure may
>produce about the same aftertouch as a .020" with a very light pressure.

Agreed. I cut a slot in two 0.050" paper punchings, so that they can be
slid into place at the front rail pins. I set the aftertouch at the 1st
natural in the tenor, and leaving that one there for later reference as to
the pressure used move upwards first on the naturals and returning with the
sharps. No dead weights for me, let my finger be the one to push the key
through let-off because the proper adjustment is for me tactile not visual,
requiring that my finger feel the jack clearing the knuckle.


>This is done about midway in the regulation procedure.  Obviously, the
>balancier, let-off, hammer line and key level have to be finished. After the
>aftertouch has been determined, the final backcheck height must be set, which
>then allows the most refined approach to setting the repetition springs.

For me the actual timing of this should be as late as possible in the
regulation, but the further out of adjustment it is, the greater your final
pass after the proper aftertouch has been set. Which means that your
initial dip should be as close as possible (and BTW, on the fat side as
it's always easier to add punchings than remove them). But given that the
initial dip is well-set, the thin paper punchings added during the
aftertouch step upset mainly the drop and check. By hey, let's be fussy and
pass through all the "button" on last time.

At 07:02:52 -0500, 7/1/00 Avery Todd <avery@ev1.net> wrote:
>Lower hammers give less aftertouch and higher gives more.
>You're not using a predetermined hammer blow distance this way
>because there are some pianos that it just won't work to set the blow
>distance to a predetermined measurement.

Avery Todd describes the blow-priority approach, beginning with a standard
dip and using blow to achieve (adjust) aftertouch. The basic fact is that
aftertouch is a function of blow AND dip, and the keep it simple for our
regulation, we'd prefer to make one fixed and vary the other. Given my
concern about the inclination of the shanks at rest. I prefer to fix the
blow (for Steinway's, 1.75": others, 1.875"), and put in an aftertouch for
each note as Ed describes.

In fact, this approach will produce unequal dip. Not surprising considering
that knuckle lines and cap lines are hardly ever gun-barrel straight. I
look at it this way. Say, for three adjacent notes (with equal blow and
dip), the middle one requires an extra 0.010" to give its dip the same
complete stroke as its neighbors. Adjusting this at the blow will require
raising that hammer roughly 1/16" (0.010" x 6:1 XnRatio), not the sort of
hammer line we like to leave a careful regulation with. Making this
correction at the dip is certainly the place where the pianist's finger is
going to sense it immediately (say, with a note a .400" sandwiched between
two notes @ .390").

But it is my experience that this 0.010" is far less noticeable added to a
dip of .390" to produce a uniform aftertouch, than it is when missing from
the aftertouch of a uniform dip. ( A 0.010" addition to a .390" dip is 2.5%
variation from a standard dip, but when it's missing from the aftertouch of
this standard dip it amounts to 20% of a desired 0.050" aftertouch. Which
is why pianists will appreciate a close regulation of aftertouch with a
wiggling dip (wiggling in its measurements), instead of a uniform dip with
ragged aftertouch.

Another way to look at this is that the standard dip and adjusted blow
approach is the Historical Treatment of aftertouch, that is, the one we
probably all learned first and which we would say if surveyed, is the most
long-standing. The method of setting in aftertouch directly is the Equal
Treatment, as it produces a consistent aftertouch. Certainly there is a
place for both HT and ET. ET proponents claim that the pianist's
performance suffer when aftertouch is inconsistent. One should be able to
move a piece from key to key and not have to worry that the feeling of the
regulation has changed with this transposition. Advocates of HT maintain
that something is lost when the character of a series of indivudal
aftertouches encountered during the execution of a musical passage is
traded for a mindless uniformity thereof.
Thoughts anyone? <g>

Bill Ballard

"Four Sicilian sisters forced forsythia
  for Cynthia."
    ...........said at our dinner table one evening.