To be or not to be: a heavy hammer

[David Love]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
This discussion is becoming a bit circular and I don't think I can add =
much to what I've already stated.  My research??? comes from the actions =
I've assembled and various tests on models.  Many people have wider =
parameters than I am suggesting and are willing to live with the changes =
necessary in regulation.  Any change in the action ratio, by definition, =
will cause some change in the regulation.   Action ratios of 5.75 - =
5.85, I am finding, produce the regulation specs that I outlined.  If =
the action regulates at 10 mm dip and 45 mm blow at R =3D 5.75, then if =
you change the R to 5.5 you will not be able to regulate the action with =
the same dimensions unless you alter the aftertouch.  Since I aim for =
only enough aftertouch to adequately clear the jack from the knuckle, =
any reduction creates potential problems.  On a concert grand, where =
blow distances increase slightly, a higher ratio is necessary if you =
want to maintain 10 mm dip and  aftertouch. =20

I don't restrict myself to 80% of FW, that is my target.  If a =
particular set of hammers cause things go over a bit or under a bit I =
don't worry about it.  Thus the SW zones are not limited to mid range, =
they can creep up a bit if I am willing to up the BW, FW or both, which =
I do on occasion.  You keep harping on this pppp ffff thing, as I =
mentioned in a previous post, this is a small consideration.  The tonal =
improvement reaped from moving the SW zone beyond where it can be =
accommodated by an R of 5.75 - 5.85 without assist springs, overly high =
BW's or FW's does not produce enough (if any) tonal improvement to =
warrant such a change.  That is my opinion, of course.  Quality of tone =
is not yet quantifiable and so is always a matter of opinion, which I =
don't mind having.  Th bottom line in all this is that  those who are =
entertaining recent trends of very low action ratios to deal with what I =
consider a passing fancy of high strike weight zones would do well to =
consider whether the supposed benefits outweigh the costs. =20

Nobody needs to take my word for it.  I'm just offering this up as my =
experience.  Try it yourself or do what you want.  And good luck.

David Love


----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Richard Brekne=20
  To: Pianotech=20
  Sent: October 17, 2002 12:20 PM
  Subject: Re: To be or not to be: a heavy hammer


  David Love wrote:=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.=20
    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.=20

    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 ?=20

    So let's do the math.  Let's take note 18 in high strike weight =
zone.=20

    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) =20

    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 ?=20

    Your point was "why heavy hammers ? ". You justify your point by=20

      1: a subjective opinion on the tone benifits of heavier hammers.=20
      2: a claim that outside the 5.85 - 5.75 ratio range the action =
regulates poorly.=20
      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.=20
     =20
    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.=20

    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.=20

    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".=20

    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 ?=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.=20

    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 ?=20
   =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/f3/68/a6/a8/attachment.htm

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