Isaac OLEG wrote: >Richard..... > > >I bet that, under certain optimum parameters like backchecks height, >the synchronism can be kept by the pianist for a larger dynamic zone, >because I am in fact persuaded that the pianists knows how to deal >with the flexing and compression of the system in regard of this >effect, so to keep it in more playing modes, or extend it presence >around the limits. > > Well.. of course anything is possible I suppose, and indeed my own musings have been going along the lines that this 2mm thingy may turn out to be an optimal setting from the standpoint of back checking efficiency. Coupled with Stephens idea that perhaps this also approximates the position where said efficient checking stays clear of the problem of interfering with the hammers upward travel under all dynamic conditions... then maybe all this is rather two different ways of saying more or less the same thing. But I am uncomfortable with the use of the word synchonism in this context (without it being closer defined for this application). To begin with we are talking about three different impact moments in this discussion, and clearly at the very best only two of them could possibly happen at the same exact time. That said... I have to repeat that we are dealing with very small moments of time so perhaps this is less important. Yet if there is not such a degree of importance attached to such small time periods.. then how can the added minuscule nano time period that would result from say a 1 mm setting as opposed to 2mm have on the sound of the piano ??? As I said earlier.. the discussion seems to be loosing its focus and it seems we are mixing several different decks and using one to justify playing a card in another. We were first looking for a explanation that this 2 mm setting could affect piano sound as it does... apparently adding to both power and sustain. The synchronization line of thought first and formost builds upon the idea that impact noises can be utilized to expedite such an affect. Further then when these impacts work in concert as it were this affect is compounded. All that I find acceptable. But then it is postulated that setting the back check at 2mm causes this exact compounding of impacts for a very wide dynamic area of play. This is problematic at best because of the extremly small moments of time between the impacts and the significance of the changes in those any minor adjustment in the back check height could possibly cause, and because of the degree (undefined/unknown) of synchonicity in the first place. Like I said.. its a sexy explanation to be sure... but it is still shooting in the dark with rubber bullets. :) Stephens take on the other hand takes a totally different angle on the whole thing. He simply raises the possiblity that if the 2 mm adjustment has this affect, then quite possibly it is simply because said position alleviates an existing imediment to the forementioned power and sustain to begin with. So, he suggests to go about the buisness of ascertaining whether or not this could be the case, and provides a <<kitchen physics>> experimental method of taking a quick look at the problem, which I doubt seriously was meant to suffice as a controlled laboratory experiment would. But then he knows most of us dont have laboratories at our disposal :) >How ? delaying the acceleration of the key, modifying his touch, >lightening the system brake with a judicious use of the pedal, using >the flexibility of the system to stay within that effect even if he >play more or less strong... > > I really dont think pianists operate this way at all... not even intuitively. When the pianist uses the sustain pedal, it is because he / she wants some degree of klang...extra sustain.... I dont think they conciously or otherwise utilize the pedal to lessen the internal frictions of a particular key just so he / she can flex the system for maximum output for a given dynamic touch. In fact... I would question whether or not this actually happens at all in the first place... let alone be some subconcious instinctive ability pianists have... but again... grin... it does sound very sexy. >If a certain action configuration (geometry and regulation) allow for >this larger zone, I suggest we can say the action is very expressive , >and I suggest that part of the backchecks height regulation is an >important parameter to that. > > Yes yes.... but come on now... we are on about the adjustment of the backcheck height.. and talking about minut differences in adjustment with relation to the synchonicites you cite which are supposedly then responsible for a very large change in the tonal characterisitcs of the piano as a whole. This is too big a pill for me to swallow.... at least without more the pure conjecture as a basis for the claim. That said... Stephens take should also be put to the proverbial test. As should any other proposed explanation. >When one change heads on pre 84 (or is it before )Hamburg Steinways, >the height of the backchecks have to be lowered if one wants the best >dynamics (it can be regulated without it but I still prefer the 2mm >rule) > > Well... for whatever reasons... we are all in aggreement that the 2mm rule seems to have an obvious tonal benifit. Thats for sure. So I suppose, tho it is indeed fun and stimulating (for me at any rate) to bounce ideas back and forth... in the end it is the result that is important. >The fact that the tone strengthen is just the sign of a better >efficiency to me. > > I can buy this formulation as well. But again... whether its a matter of synchonous impacts working in concert to add energy, or simply because the hammer is otherwise being slowed in some hithertoo unaccounted for fashion ... or for that matter something entirely different... is still an open book IMHO. >Cheers > >Isaac OLEG > Back at ya :) RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC