This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Comments interspespersed in bold: ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Richard Brekne=20 To: Pianotech=20 Sent: October 17, 2002 3:01 AM Subject: Re: To be or not to be: a heavy hammer Indeed one does not require any particularly low ratio levels to = regulate quite normally... until one approaches the highest levels of = the high SW zone I took the liberty of re-including the rest of this statement as it is = rather a decisive qualifier dont you think ?=20 No, I don't think it does. The action regulates purely as a function of = action ratio, with some wiggle room. The SW zone has nothing to do with = it. 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. With that above qualifier in mind, I find that the range of dip = available for 45 - 48 blow is considerably larger, also the amount of = aftertouch variers and can figure into this. I also find that it is no = problem regulating to 10 mm dip for a wider ratio range then you give. I = also find that it is the norm rather then the exception that pianists = tastes in these matters, as in virtually all others, vary.=20 You can vary the aftertouch but you have more room on the deeper side. = You need a minimum amount. Tastes vary somewhat, but not generally to = the degree that it requires a wholesale change in the targeted ratio. =20 =20 So let's do the math. Let's take note 18 in high strike weight zone. After re-inclusion of the qualifier to my above statement, I find this = example out of the scope which I drew up. Indeed, I stated right out = that when one reaches this highest level (and you picked the absolute = highest) one runs into problems. We could just as easily do the same for = the absolute lowest.=20 But the issue doesn't exist at the lowest level in the same way. There = are no concerns about exceeding front weight maximums. Anyway, my point = in this was "why heavy hammers". The example I gave of a high zone = hammer is something I recently saw on a Stanwood project. (One that I = was asked to undo, BTW) Perhaps we should concentrate on what seems the jist of your discussion = ? You state that velocity can compensate for mass, and I question this. = You state that the range of dip is 10 mm to 10 mm :), blow, 45 - 48 mm, = ratio 5.75 - 5.85, aftertouch (?), and I question this as well. You = state that the SW zone should be limited to a range of low mediums to = mid mediums, and that heavier then that leads exclusively to more = loudness, which you define seemingly as a negative quality, and all = kinds of regulation problems. (based on the range of parameters you give = above) You also claim that the lightest controlable pppp playing is = accomplished with very light hammers, and I question these as well.=20 Now what I get out of all this is that you define a very narrow set of = regulation and action ratio parameters that you personally prefer and = feel yeilds always the best sound, and you feel anything out of this = range is... wrong. Is that correct ?=20 It's a bit jumbled. But in short, I think that regulation rules in = terms of decision making on actions. The rest must fall within the area = where regulation requirements can be met. I don't think I said anything = about restricting weights to low mediums. I think the ideal regulation = happens with an action ratio of 5.75 - 5.85. You can do the math from = there to figure out the highest strike weight zone that will keep you in = the ballpark when you factor in desired balance weight and front weight. = Pushing up the strike weights to high zones for the sake of aleged = tonal benefits creates other problems that, in my opinion, are not = adequately solved by the currently employed protocols. =20 =20 Whether you like the sound or not is a different matter entirely.... and = falls within the realm of personal taste does it not ? I find it odd = that "taste" or "feel" is so often dismissed in these discussions as = irrelevant. David.... that is exactly my point. Pianists tastes for touch and sound = vary largely.=20 Gotta go to work now, but I would end this one by saying that the specs = argument (which perhaps at least half of this this boils down to) has = gone on for ages and will not be solved here. Manufacturers give = recommended specs, and they are not written in iron. Bob Hofs article = series on action elevations shows clearly the dependancy these have on = the distance between string heights and key bed. And thats just the = start of it. No... in this I agree entirely with our friend from Texas = whose opinions on tuning and ETD related subject matter I enjoy so much = and often disagree with. Its not a perfect world.=20 =20 Pianists tastes in touch and sound do vary, but not as largely as you = think in terms of what is needed as far as design. You can achieve a = wide enough range of touch and tone within the parameters that I've = outlined to accomodate 99% of the pianists. Similarly with tone. The = designs I see that incorporate high strike weight zone hammers, I = believe, have a more limited range of who they will accomodate and so I = would not advocate them as a standard approach. David Love --=20 Richard Brekne=20 RPT, N.P.T.F.=20 UiB, Bergen, Norway=20 mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no=20 http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html=20 =20 ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/a7/b4/89/e2/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC