Dear Pianotech, Just some comments on the great discussion that was stimulated by "patent notice". David Love states his preference for 6.0 ratio with 1/2 medium StrikeWt. Stephen Birkett describes a Cristofori with a 10.0 ratio and, compared with today's standards, an almost weightless hammer, (what's the blow/dip?). I'll state my generic preference for a 5.3 ratio with 1/2 high StrikeWt and wippen support springs working about 11 grams. What's great here is that we are talking about matching hammer weight with action ratio as a means for describing action quality. It's called Touch Designing and I'm very happy to see the discussion progress beyond mere down weight which has nothing really to do with the actual force it takes to move a key at playing speeds. David Love Wed, 2 Oct 2002 Writes: >The practice of putting heavier hammers on a concert instrument comes >from the idea that more mass will produce greater force and therefore >greater volume of tone. In my case the use of high zone hammers comes from pianist feedback, not theoretical ideas. At first I pursued light hammers but listening to pianists has brought me to explore higher weights. I'd also like to say that high zone is not abnormal, it's within the normal zone. We just measured a Steingraeber medium sized grand with upper high zone strike weights and in the upper melodic section they were above TopHigh. This piano sounds absolutely beautiful at all dynamic ranges. You won't convince the owner that there is anything wrong with his hammer weight. Steingraeber is one of the finest pianos made. There are countless examples of pianos with high zone hammer weights in the world that have absolutely beautiful tone there are some really bad sounding ones too and there are some really good or bad sounding pianos with 1/2 medium zone hammer weights. High zone hammers are not Abnormal. If 6.0 ratio with 1/2 medium strikewt works for David Love he should pursue that. There are pianists who will like that style of design. I find that ratios closer to 5.3 with high zone strikewts work well for my clients. What's important is that we are talking about hammer weight and ratio. This discussion was missing in the past. It's great! I don't impose personal bias on the hammer weights I choose for Precision TouchDesigns that I provide for my consulting group. I'm simply getting feedback from a group of fine technicians that now numbers 58 and they are listening to the pianists. It's the feedback that I listen too and base my touch design decisions on a lot of qualitative input. I'm happy to share it. I'd like to relate a real world experience that I had a few years ago. Serge Harel, in Quebec City asked me to create a design for a TopHigh zone strike weight on a Steinway D concert grand. I called him up and said "Serge, I've never designed a hammer weight so high. Are you sure?" His response was "David, I tested the hammer weights in the piano and for these hammers with this piano, TopHigh sounds best". So I designed an action with TopHigh StrikeWt, 5.0 ratio, and full 88 note wippen support springs. The piano was shown at the NE Regional Seminar and it was a huge success. It plays beautifully at ALL dynamic levels... Loyd Meyer called it the "Magic Piano". TopHigh StrikeWts have a place in the piano world. It has also been intimated that ratios as low as 5.5 will cause problems with shortened blow. This is simply not always true. Hamburg Steinways all average 5.5 ratios and they are one of the highest standards of quality in modern pianos. We have examples of pianos with 5.0 ratios that work with 44.5mm blow/10.0mm dip. We have other examples of 5.0 ratio actions that work with a 44.5mm blow but require an 11.0mm dip. What's the difference? We find that changing things like action center heights, spread, hammer bore, knuckle radii, and the magic line can improve the efficiency of the geometry. I've come to measure action efficiency by comparing weight ratios with distance ratios. In the above example the action with a 5.0 ratio/44.5mm blow/11.0mm dip is not very efficient. The action with a 5.0 ratio/44.5mm blow/10.0mm dip is very efficient. What I teach in my consulting group is to find that best weight hammer for the piano then I design the action ratio around that weight. If the desired weight is 1/2 medium zone, I would specify 6.0 ratio. If it's a TopMedium I would specify a 5.5 ratio. If the best tone comes from a TopMedium strikewt but the ratio is 6.0 then the ratio has to be changed to match the hammer weight and this is done by changing the capstan line. When I hear "Experts" say things like "Never move a capstan line" It really irks me. Moving a capstan line can lead to huge improvements in certain cases. We need to develop the skills of knowing when it is appropriate and what the limits are. It's all about balancing the hammer weight and action ratio so it feels comfortable. Not too light or too heavy unless the customer specifically asks for that.... Matching hammer weight with ratio is a skill we need to develop in our trade. David Stanwood Hammer Weight Rating curves available freely at: http://www.stanwoodpiano.com/touchweight.htm "When I find an action that is comfortable, the tone is usually too thin because the hammers are smaller, and so the sound is smaller, too." Alicia de Larrocha
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC