To be or not to be: a heavy hammer

[David Love]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Well Richard, it sounds like you already paid David for the licensing.  =
There was a lot of stuff to wade through, I just addressed the main =
points.

Your comments are in italics:

Indeed one does not require any particularly low ratio levels to =
regulate quite normally...=20

My point is that low ratios will not regulate normally.  If you happen =
to believe, as I do, that certain regulation parameters correlate to =
certain action ratios, then there is a narrow range of acceptable action =
ratios that you can use if regulation is a high priority.  With me, it =
is.  I think that an action should regulate with 10 mm dip and 45 - 48 =
mm blow.  There may be a few individuals who for some reason prefer the =
dip to be deeper.  Those individuals are exceptions (in my opinion) and =
should not form the basis of decisions made about how generally to set =
up an action.  My experience and testing suggests that the range for of =
action ratios that will allow you to achieve those regulation specs fall =
between 5.75 and 5.85.  I know many individuals are willing to take the =
ratio down to 5.5, or lower.  If they are set on 10 mm dip then they =
will have to compromise blow distance to do that. =20

So let's do the math.  Let's take note 18 in high strike weight zone.  =
Using the Stanwood charts, that brings the SW in at 14 grams.  Following =
the formula:

FW =3D (R x SW) + (KR x WW) - BW  (if my memory serves me)

and plugging in the numbers using R =3D 5.75, SW =3D 14, KR =3D .52, WW =
=3D 18. BW =3D 40, then if I do my math correctly, FW =3D 49.6 grams.  =
That's 12.6 grams over Stanwood's published maximum of 37 grams for that =
note.  Take the BW down to 38 where I normally set it up and you can add =
two more grams to the FW.  To get the FW down to the maximum you would =
need either an R of 4.85 which would put your key dip around 1/2".  Or =
you could push the BW up to 53 which would put the downweight (assuming =
15 grams of friction at that end of the keyboard) of 68 grams!  Not =
acceptable.  Or, you could add an assist spring to compensate for 13 =
grams of FW, keeping the FW's at maximum.  Or some combination of the =
above.  All this in order to reap the tonal benefits of a high strike =
weight zone hammer?  I've put clips on a hammer shank to change the SW =
and I can hear the difference.  It's louder.  So what.  Give me quality =
over quantity.   What I have seen to accomplish a design like this is an =
action ratio down in the 5.3 range with an assist spring compensating =
for 15 grams of FW and thus a FW comfortably under maximums.   The =
action regulates with 11+ mm of dip or 40 mm of blow.  Those are a lot =
of contortions to go through for a tonal benefit that I believe isn't =
even there. =20

Take that same note in a medium SW zone at 10.7 grams (from Stanwood =
charts) and that brings the FW in at 31 grams, 6 grams under the maximum =
where you can easily take the balance weight up or down and maintain a =
relatively low inertia action that regulates with standard specs.   Why =
mess with success.

I am more inclined to think that high strike weight zone hammers are an =
attempt to compensate for poorly designed soundboards.  So instead of =
just a bad sound, you now have a bigger bad sound.  On a well designed =
soundboard, my experience and unscientific inclination is that a medium =
weight hammer of proper density and resilience will produce everything =
you need. =20

Whether you like the sound or not is a different matter entirely.... and =
falls within the realm of personal taste does it not ?=20

I find it odd that "taste" or "feel" is so often dismissed in these =
discussions as irrelevant.  There are too many theoreticians in these =
discussions and not enough pianists if you ask me.  It's not hard to =
manipulate a formula for the sake of some theory but I sometimes think =
that technicians really interested in honing their craft to a high level =
would be well served spending more time developing their pianistic =
skills.  Even if you don't know the literature, you have to be able to =
play like a pianist in order to understand what it is that you are =
trying to create.   All these theories are meaningless if the piano =
doesn't feel right or sound right.  And yes, we are not only allowed to =
make value judgments about what constitutes good tone and a playable =
action, but must do it if we are to have any credibility.  With that, I =
don't think that setting up actions is a crapshoot of accommodating =
personal tastes.  I think that 99% of the pianists we deal with want =
things within a certain range.  Regulation parameters, I believe, should =
fall within a very narrow range.  With the proper set up, exchanging a =
key lead for a bit higher balance weight or vice versa should fall =
within the range of what is easily achievable on any given piano, if you =
ask me, in the same way that we should be able to manage the tonal =
palette up or down.  The Horowitzes of the world are exceptions in many =
ways. =20

That's all for now.

David Love





---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/1f/da/1c/74/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--