To be or not to be: a heavy hammer

[Richard Brekne]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
David Love wrote:

>  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.
>
> In the context of our discussion it sure does. Because the
> action ratio is being changed around to deal with higher
> SW zones. And this is what you are on about. Your whole
> point seems to be that higher (defined as anything above
> mid mediums)  SW zones demand lower ratios, which causes
> regulation problems and yeilds no tonal benifit. 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.
>
> You draw up a very narrow set of parameters indeed David.
> Mine are quite a bit wider, tho as I have stated not so
> wide as force the use of whippen assist springs to or go
> over the maximum FW standards. You state that tastes do no
> vary largely enough to justify any ratio outside 5.85 -
> 5.75 range. What evidence do you have that this is true ?
> Where is your research that confirms this assertion ?
>
> 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. 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)
>
> No it doesnt, you are correct. There are concerns however
> about problems with regulating within the specs you give
> and still maintaining a good balance..... or perhaps you
> take issue with that as well. This would be an interesting
> turn worth persuing me thinks ?
>
> Your point was "why heavy hammers ? ". You justify your
> point by
>
>      1: a subjective opinion on the tone benifits of
>      heavier hammers.
>      2: a claim that outside the 5.85 - 5.75 ratio
>      range the action regulates poorly.
>      3: an assertion that the velocity of light
>      hammers compensates for lower mass, even to the
>      degree of providing better pppp control.
>
> These are the centerpins to your argumenation so far as I
> can see. So since you decided on an extreme heavy SW
> example, I took the opposite extreme which as far as my
> understanding goes requires a higher ratio to balance
> well. A higher ratio increases hammer velocity relative to
> key travel, where as a lower one appropriate for heavier
> hammers does the opposite.  In fact at least one major
> manufacturer has moved in this direction, opting for a key
> deep of a bit under 10mm as part of the configuration.
> Fits the bill so to speak... unless the whole bill is
> wrong to begin with. 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.
>
>
> By restricting the ratio to a range of 5.75 - 5.85,
> limiting yourself to maxium FW's at 80% or below of the
> maximums Stanwood gives, and not employing an assist
> spring, you infer a SW zone that does not exceed the
> middle part of the mid SW zone. Which aggrees nicely with
> your stated preferences for SW's.
>
> Take your example note 18. Mid medium is about 10.6 grams
> SW. 80% of the max FW comes out to 29.6 grams. A 5.75
> ratio and 9 gram WBW yeilds a BW of 40.35 here. Fine
> enough... but you cant add much SW without needing to
> change things... hence the infered SW restriction to mid
> mediums or below.
>
> Increase this SW to just 11.7 and leave all else the same
> and you have a BW of 46.7 But by accepting a 5.6 ratio and
> FW's at 90 % you can achieve the same BW with this
> increase in SW. There is no way a 5.6 ratio is difficult
> to regulate, even within the 10mm dip 45 - 48 mm blow you
> parameters you give. And there is no evidence given to
> support the claim that this small increase in key inertia
> creates a "problem".
>
> I still maintain that SW zones up to the mid highs do not
> cause any of the regulation problems you claim. For your
> note 18 that would be 12.4 grams. A 5.6 ratio here yeilds
> max FWs and thats it. Same BW, same key dip, virtually
> same everything else. Wheres the problem ?
>  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.
>
> I beg to differ, but I am willing to look at any
> documentation or research done that would support this
> claim. My own experience tells me different, and the only
> large information base compiled on the matter would also
> seem to point in this direction. In any case, none of this
> last paragraph can serve as a basis for condemnations of
> configurations which employ ratios moderatly outside the
> range you give. Tho I will aggree that any  "standard"
> approach concept would be best to approximate an "on
> average" representation of measured preferences. David
> Love

 Cheers David. And thanks for the interesting exchange. This
is what the list is all about eh ?


Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
UiB, Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/9a/ac/3c/93/attachment.htm

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