Weird Frontweights

[Kevin E. Ramsey]

    Just a thought here, folks;

    Any weighting off of keys, if done on an individual basis, must first
have all of the other problems of friction, regulation, etc. taken care of
first. So many of the manufacturers don't seem to be able to do this.
    So, if a piano is made at the factory with these obvious shortcomings,
and then the keys are individually weighted on an action in that condition,
when it IS put into the proper, well-regulated condition, then it seems to
me that the key weighing would no longer be correct, and in fact would
probably be all over the place.
    I can't hardly remember the last time I saw a Steinway come from the
factory which didn't need at least six hours of finishing. The concept of
individually weighing off of keys seems to be a very valid one to me, but
while doing it, one would have to constantly be asking oneself; "Why is this
one so much different than that one?"
    Hope this isn't inappropriately simple.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Farrell" <mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: Weird Frontweights


> What an interesting concept! I am in NO way trying to put words in Del's
> mouth - I am very interested in hearing his reply to you question. I will
> speculate a bit though. I do not believe that in any way his comments
> suggest Precision Touchweight is not valid. I believe his comments are
> independent of Precision Touchweight, and he is simply stating that if an
> action/belly is precisely engineered AND manufactured, that BWs, WBW, FWs,
> other action geometry can be very predictable and as such, leading can
> indeed be very predictable. I further suggest he is suggesting that a
given
> quality piano can be manufactured in such a way to give FWs (not counting
> variances in action center friction) within a set range (and thus,
> predictable leading). The range would simply depend on natural variations
in
> material densities, and whatever engineering and manufacturing tolerances
> were allowed (and of course, these would be known).
>
> In practice, certainly the Precision Touchweight has the potential to
yield
> more accurate results. But compared to the comparatively haphazard methods
> of action/belly manufacturing in many plants, Del's engineered method
would
> yield much more accurate results than the 'individually weighing off
keys' -
> and likely up to a standard acceptable to most of the piano-buying
public -
> at a cost (just guessing here) of no more (maybe less?) than 'individually
> weighing off keys' . But just think of the next time you do Stanwood's
> Precision Touchweight on a piano that was engineered/manufactured to
within
> close tolerances like Del is suggesting (I think).
>
> I hope I am not stepping on your toes Del. Just speculating and so very
> interested in this subject. Ok, now put me in my place!
>
> Terry Farrell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Brekne" <rbrekne@broadpark.no>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 7:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Weird Frontweights
>
>
> >
> >
> > Delwin D Fandrich wrote:>
> >
> > > > I seem to remember that for some interval during the last
> > > > fifteen years, Baldwin was sending its smaller grands out with 100%
> > > > of their leading set by pattern.
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > As they should be. At least in any piano purporting to be of good
> musical
> > > quality.
> > >
> >
> > hmmm.....not quite sure I buy this...read on.
> >
> > > This whole idea of 'individually weighing off keys' is one that should
> have
> > > died some decades back just as soon as the concept of uniform touch
was
> > > figured out. It was a bad idea when it was conceived and it remains a
> bad
> > > idea.
> > >
> >
> > First, I would like to have this concept of "uniform touch" as you use
it
> > defined. Seems to me that weighing of individual keys is neccessary to
> achieve
> > a truly even set of FW's.
> >
> > >
> > > It is a practice of using lead to make up for variations in the
> > > action--mostly those of irregular friction--so that static downweight
is
> > > uniform. But static downweight is a parameter of complete
inconsequence
> to
> > > the pianist.
> >
> > Exactly so.... at least it WAS so... but only if it is done in relation
to
> > static downweight. If done relative to Stannwoods method you would seem
to
> have
> > an entirely different condition. Exactly matching SW's, WBW,  FW's  with
> > correct and consistant leverage leave friction as the only element left
> that
> > can show variances.... or what ? And if so then said friction problems
are
> easy
> > to track down and even out also.
> >
> > >
> > > The best way to set key leading is to engineer it for a specific
> action/key
> > > combination and then use static downweight tests as a troubleshooting
> guide
> > > to tell the factory technician where to look for problems. The idea,
of
> > > course, is that the problems should be fixed before the piano is
> shipped.
> > >
> > > Del
> >
> > The only way a static downweight test can be of value is if said test
can
> give
> > you information that can indeed be a help in trouble shooting. Unless
you
> know
> > ahead of time that at least certain key parameters are right on the
> button,
> > variances of DW can mean just about anything.  I have difficulty in
seeing
> that
> > laying out a pattern for leads that should be installed in all specific
> models
> > of a particular piano make can achieve this more then roughly.  Are you
> saying
> > that such pattern laying will result in an a very even FW curve with no
> > variances of over 2 or 3 grams ?... Even that would be relatively rough
I
> would
> > think.
> >
> > Curious to hear more of what would on the surface of it seem to be the
> first
> > anti-Stannwood posting I have read.
> >
> > --
> > Richard Brekne
> > RPT, N.P.T.F.
> > Bergen, Norway
> > mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
> >
> >