Thank you,thank you, David, for this EXTREMELY well
written and informative post!!! ( I'm printing this
one out! ) And I would only like to add that
considerations of usage should also be taken when
making touch-weight decisions, as a certain feel may
be ideal for concerto work, where the pianist plays a
few bars, then rests while the orchestra takes over.
But it might present problems to someone doing an hour
recital, and be outright DANGEROUS to working slobs
like me, playing 4-hour gigs of ragtime and stride
piano for weddings, banquets and the like! I NEED an
action just as ABSOLUTELY light as possible, while
still allowing a bit control, or I will suffer SERIOUS
tendon injuries! In my line of work, it is much easier
to adapt to a super-light action than carpal tunnel!
Thump
--- David Love <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Several Points:
>
> First, the issue, as I mentioned, is not whether a
> 5g hammer can replace a 10 g hammer, but whether you
> reap any benefit from going from 10 grams to 12, or
> 5 grams to 7 grams grams. I'm not arguing "light
> hammer", I aim for medium zone strike weights: 10.5
> - 11 g at note 1. I am arguing against going to
> overly heavy hammers, high strike weight zone type.
>
>
> Second, the differences between hammer #88 and #1
> include other things besides weight: the amount of
> felt over the core being a significant factor.
> Also, as I mentioned, if there is too great a
> difference in mass, then you won't be able to
> achieve enough of a difference in velocity to
> compensate.
>
> Third, if the lightest you can play with control is
> with an acceleration of x, then the quietest the
> piano can be made to sound becomes a function of the
> mass of the hammer (una corda aside). Though the
> same thing is true at the other end a properly
> voiced piano includes the ability to push the volume
> to the point of distortion (in case you want that
> effect) and so you don't benefit as much there. I
> admit this is a small point of consideration.
>
> Fourth, a high strike weight zone hammer requires
> either more lead or lower action ratio, or assist
> springs. I think actions can be optimized in terms
> of inertia and action ratio. I don't like FW's up
> at the maximum. I prefer them at about 80%. I
> think it gives a better feel. Action ratios should
> be where regulation specs are not compromised.
> Though blow distances vary on certain pianos (though
> not by much) , I think there is an ideal range of
> dip, 10 to 10.25 mm. Deeper than that and you
> start compromising control, in my opinion. Though
> pianos come out of factories with varying
> dimensions, it doesn't mean that those dimensions
> are ideal. A hammer of medium weight allows you to
> set up the piano with FW's that don't approach or
> exceed maximums and with an action ratio that
> doesn't force you to shorten the blow or deepen the
> dip. I don't think assist springs offer a benefit
> in terms of feel or control.
>
> Fifth, though rebound is a function of hammer
> resilience, it is also a function of mass. Try your
> own experiment, put hammer number 1 at note 60 and
> see how it sounds. My experience is that a high
> strike weight zone hammer in this area offers no
> improvement in tone. It makes more noise, but not a
> better quality sound.
>
> Finally, I made these initial comments because I
> notice a trend among some rebuilders to go for high
> strike weight zone hammers with the idea that there
> are tonal benefits to be reaped. I don't see the
> benefits. Moreover, I see that this configuration
> requires compromises in other areas to offset the
> weight problems that are created. I see no benefit
> here either. Though pianists fingers can adapt to
> anything, I'm not that interested in trying to push
> the envelope to see just what they can tolerate.
> I'd rather try and find a theoretical ideal that
> balances tone and touch and then make compromises
> only when necessary, or to accommodate specific
> variations in taste.
>
> David Love
>
> This is the heart of Ed McMorrows thinking. He would
> also add that friction is quite reduced with lower
> hammer weights, though he does not formally work
> this into his equation. However, while F=m*a is
> quite simple in itself and has led Ed and others to
> believe that the mass reduction of a lighter hammer
> can be sufficiently compensated for by increased
> acceleration, many years experience with this
> approach has not born that claim out. One need do no
> more complicated experiment then to take a hammer
> from key 88 and lead it to the same weight as key 1
> and exchange the two to begin confirming that things
> are not so simple. Voice all you want, or use
> different hammers all you want, and there is still a
> difference in sound. Perhaps its as simple as saying
> velocity simply does not compensate for mass in the
> sense we seem to assume here.
>
> Thats an interesting claim, tho I dont see it
> qualified in any sense. And I have heard the
> opposite being stated, equally unqualified I might
> add. I wonder if you might try and justify all this
> a bit in terms of the mechanics involved. Just why
> do you think a more massive hammer effects no change
> (or a negative one perhaps) at pppp ? And how can
> you show that a light hammer can be more reliably
> controlled ?
> very curioius.
>
> I dont think it has been shown that hammer rebound
> from the string is mostly a function of its mass.
> Rather I think it has been shown that the hammers
> resiliancy has the most determinant function in this
> regard. Neither do I understand that a lighter
> hammer allows any particular greater freedom in
> terms of key dip, or blow. These parameters vary
> quite enough as a matter of course already. We see
> everything from a little over 9 mm dip to circa 11
> mm dip coming out of factories, and from as little
> as 42 mm blow to as much as 50. There is in fact no
> standard by which to define what a "compromise of
> keydip, blow or both" is.
> Lowering the ratio will make it lighter at the key,
> and yet it will it will travel less distance with
> equal key movement, and thus more slowly at equal
> key speed. But because it seems lighter at the
> key..... the finger playing will have a tendancy to
> compensate in order to achieve similiar degrees of
> sound volume.
>
> And its the pianists fingers this is in the end all
> about. It might be instructive to simply change the
> ratio and compensate the action regulation with a
> change in blow. This would keep key dip and hammer
> mass constant in an attempt to better identify the
> effect of a change in ratio on the perception of
> touch.
>
> Those are my thoughts. Feel free to
> comment.David Love
>
> me too :)
>
> --
> Richard Brekne
> RPT, N.P.T.F.
> UiB, Bergen, Norway
> mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
> http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC