METHOD

[Avery Todd]

Hi Bill,

    I guess, as sometimes happens, I didn't make myself completely clear. :-)

>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.

    No, not at all. Yes, I usually use a "standard" dip (app. 10 mm) to 
begin with
but I then set the sample(s) hammer blow at a height to achieve the aftertouch
I want, not raise or lower individual hammers to achieve that aftertouch! Then
that blow distance becomes my fixed measurement.

>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.

    I agree. I think the confusion is that I arrive at that "fixed" 
measurement a
different way than you do. But once arrived at, it "does" stay constant.

>  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.

I agree.

>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.

    In my defense, that is precisely why I said in my original post:
 >.....you can go back and make slight adjustments to the dip to even out the
 >aftertouch, where necessary.

    I guess that where I confused the issue is not clarifying that I use that
method, basically, to determine what the hammer blow needs to be instead
of just setting it to a definite, predetermined number. Then that does stay
constant.
    Before I'm finished though, I definitely go back through and even out the
aftertouch, which will produce the slightly "wiggling" dip you mentioned.
    I think we both work for the same end result (an even aftertouch) but
simply approach it a different way. So if I've understood you correctly, I
guess we're not all that far apart, after all. :-)  Are we?

>Bill Ballard

    Hope I've clarified what I was trying to say a little.

Avery