Phil wrote: >Thanks for sharing this with us. I like to think that some of what >we discussed here influenced the article. and Ric added: >Grin... I noticed a few formulations that were pretty familiar as >well. And the thought that our discussion may have influenced >Stephen a bit of course crossed my mind, (I like to flatter myself >sometimes... grin.... nobody else does so .... ) but in the end was >glad to know that I had understood correctly where he was comming >from. Well, guys, I'm not exactly sure which things you mean there. I'd be the first to agree that all we discuss here provides valuable input to formulating our ideas. As well I'm sure we often say much the same things in our work in different ways. These are the value of this sort of list debate. But...with this little article there is really nothing new that wasn't already in the slides, or in the background, e.g. the formulas were all done long ago and used as the basis for the graphs on the slides, before we discussed much at all. Perhaps the general discussion and clarification has been directed more at clarifying the sorts of questions we've raised. Anyway, as they would say on Law & Order, Action Regulation Enforcement Division, no similarity with persons or events, alive or otherwise, was intended.... Ric suggests getting some real data: >One point I'd like to get clear pretty quickly tho... just what >level of play can we expect to be able to expand the so called soft >zone too by configuring the keys intertia appropriatly ? Is this >limited to some level of pianismo ? Or can this feasably include mf >perhaps even forte play ? I must admit I've not really thought of >these musical concepts for play level in terms of actual input force >in grams. Sure. It wouldn't be too hard to estimate some parameters for real keys and actions, get some idea of the musical ballpark we're playing in. In a real action the parameters all change with the stroke, in a nonlinear fashion, but fixed estimates would still be valuable and consistent with the high school physics approach taken in the little article. I'll think about the numbers a bit and report back. >I think this question of slope is important and would be interesting >to investigate. It would be interesting to know if the desired >course is to have the steepest slope, the shallowest slope, or >something in between. Also, whether this seems to be something >universally agreed upon by pianists, or is something that is very >pianist dependent. To quote from the article etc..... At this point the theorizing and calculating has to stop, and the experimental actions and pianists have to take over. That's really the only way we'll get a feel for the significance of the inertial effects from a practical viewpoint. >As you say, in the hard zone the results seem unambiguous. In the >hard zone the unbalanced key seems to represent the ideal, or to say >it another way, the steepest slope is the most desirable. I suppose >the investigation of the slope in the soft zone could yield two >results: >1. The steepest slope is the most desirable. If this is the case >then what we need to do is I think clear - put whatever balancing >lead as close as possible to the fulcrum point. This would yield >the best results in the soft zone and the hard zone. >2. Something other than the steepest slope is most desirable. This >gives us a predicament. We then have to choose between biasing >towards optimizing soft zone play or optimizing hard zone play. I suspect, and experience with pianos suggests, that 2. is correct. Piano work ALWAYS involves compromise...and 2. is the only choice above that has give and take in it. I also suspect the desirable slope condition will also have to reflect the desirable intercept condition....i.e. the graph as a whole is perceived by the pianist. >Or we have to come up with a new action design or balancing scheme >that allows us to have a different slope in the soft zone and the >hard zone. Now that would be an interesting concept...someone later suggested two-speed gearbox. Hmm. >Also, on the next revision of your article perhaps you will include >the idea of magnetic balancing and compare this to lead balancing. >I think balancing with magnets should keep the slope of the line the >same as the line for the unbalanced key but shift it to the left a >bit. If the steepest slope is the most desirable, then this would >appear to be a good way to go. If not, then perhaps leads would be >better. Good idea to consider that...I'll have to give it some thought. Stephen -- Dr Stephen Birkett Associate Professor Department of Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 3G1 Davis Building Room 2617 tel: 519-888-4567 Ext. 3792 PianoTech Lab Ext. 7115 mailto: sbirkett[at]real.uwaterloo.ca http://real.uwaterloo.ca/~sbirkett
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC