Fw: Patent Notice

[Farrell]

Ooooo Richard. I suspect one might be able to argue the sampling size was a tad small. Was the action ratio the only difference between these two pianos?

Good food for thought though.

Terry Farrell
  
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Brekne" <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no>
To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Patent Notice


> Bill Ballard wrote:
> 
> > >What I am beginning to think is that the original designs with slightly
> > >higher action ratios (6.0 - 6.1) delivered something that the more modern
> > >trend of 5.5 or lower cannot, that there is something inherent in the
> > >relationship between key and hammer movement that is critical in imparting a
> > >sense of control.  While this necessitates relatively low strike weights (by
> > >today's standards), I am more and more inclined to think that this dilemma
> > >represents the Sophie's choice of action design.
> >
> > Again, agreed. Action ratios amplify the angular motion of the key,
> > and higher ratios provide for more gradations of hammer shank angular
> > motion per incremental-unit-of-individual-pianist's-key-motion.
> > Remember that in the formula for the force delivered to the string by
> > the hammer (F=m*a), it's the acceleration which is the pianist's
> > variable factor. Adjust the formula for lower SW and higher
> > acceleration (by bumping the leverage up), and you've increased the
> > portion of the transaction in which the pianist's input has an
> > effect. More control for the pianist.
> >
> 
> I have serious trouble with this line of reasoning that seems to claim more
> control for higher action ratios and uses the Force equation removed from all
> actual playing contexts to justify it. While it is true that ratios amplify the
> angular motion (distance) of the key as you describe, it is also true that they
> amplify (as long as you choose that word) the weight relationships of the system
> in the opposite sense. While you get more hammer movement for key movement with a
> higher ratio, the hammer takes more input force to move, which requires of the
> pianist to make use of that higher acceration to achieve the same level of sound.
> This effect is exasperated by fact that to achieve similar BW one needs less
> massive hammers. The end result is that the dynamic range of sound volume is
> effectively narrowed, because on the one hand you cant get as much sound out of
> the high ratio system to begin with, and on the other hand you cannot control the
> same level of ppp to the same degree due too exactly the increased accelleration
> the system provides.
> 
> A pianist not only moves his / her fingers X amount of distance, he/she uses X
> amount of finger power in expectation of X amount of acoustic response from the
> instrument.  The speed of the hammer relative to the speed of the key is very
> much in the picture, probably most easily noticed during slow expressive passages
> or at very low ppp levels, with the greatest level of control being a function of
> being able to control the slowest possible hammer blow. High action ratios do not
> provide this, they speed up the hammers travel relative to the key speed. And if
> they didnt... they'd be hoplessly useless.
> 
> In order to get the same tone profile with a light hammer / high ratio system you
> need to use more finger power then if you use a heavy hammer / low ratio system
> (assuming same BW). There are two obvious reasons for this more hammer mass and
> more leverage. Then on the flip side of that same acceleration coin, is that one
> is actually able to play slower and softer because of exactly the slower hammer
> speed for equal key speed.
> 
> To underscore all this let me share with you something all this discussion this
> past week led me to do.
> 
> I just completed an experiment today with two Hamburg C's. One has a top middle
> SW curve with a 5.6 ratio, BW on average of 40 and FW's on that Maximums table we
> all talk about so much. The other has a factory half medium with a roughly 6.0
> ratio and factory FW's... BW on average of 38 but varies +/- 4 grams in places. I
> askec 12 of our piano majors today to sit and tell me which piano gave them most
> control at soft play. I gave them no hints, no indications of what I wanted to
> hear. All 12 picked the piano with the 5.6 ratio. Then I asked them to sit in the
> back of the room while one of them played first one, then the other with similiar
> passages. They were asked which piano they prefered and why. The response was not
> only unanimous, but it was emphatic as well. Again the 5.6 ratio piano was
> picked. When asked to discuss why they felt the one was better then the other
> they dropped comments like more power, and more body. Roundness and increased
> tonal color were mentioned several times. And interesting enough... (tho I am not
> suprised by this anymore) they also without exception said they felt the piano
> with the lower ratio and higher BW was actually lighter. And I am not even
> finished with the final regulation on this instrument after the Hammer change and
> SW increase. Both are voiced in my me (read similar voicing technique) within the
> past 2 weeks.
> 
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> 
> Richard Brekne
> RPT, N.P.T.F.
> UiB, Bergen, Norway
> mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
> http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives