Weird Frontweights

[Delwin D Fandrich]

You pretty much got the picture. How what I wrote was taken to be
"anti-Stanwood" I've no idea. The only thing I'm anti is anti sloppy action
manufacturing.

Del

----------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Farrell" <mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: 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
> >
> >
>