SW heresy?

[Overs Pianos]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Hi Sarah,

>Thinking about this entire issue, I wonder whether the "ideal" 
>action would have massively heavy, slow-moving hammers in the bass, 
>with a very, very low SWR, and rapidly moving, fly-weight hammers in 
>the treble, with an extroardinarily high SWR.

A good thought.

>   Varying the SWR radically throughout the range (e.g. through 
>graduated capstan placement) would make it possible to broaden the 
>range of strike weights to correspond more meaningfully to string 
>mass.

It most likely would, although the higher ratio in the treble would 
require that the strike/blow distance was increased also to enable 
the key dip to remain constant, assuming that this is desirable. 
Achieving a uniformly graduating regulation might be somewhat of a 
chore.

>   The ideal match between hammer and string would result in much 
>higher efficiency from the system.  The bass would be much "deeper" 
>and richer -- less loaded with overtones, and the treble would 
>probably have more of a ringing quality.  Of course if this were 
>done, it might not sound like a "piano" anymore.

Maybe not a traditional piano, whatever that might be. But why 
shouldn't the instrument keep evolving. After all, the contemporary 
examples share little in common with the early 1700 varieties. Let's 
keep moving gradually right along.

Good thoughts indeed,

Ron O.

-- 
OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY
    Grand Piano Manufacturers
_______________________

Web http://overspianos.com.au
mailto:info@overspianos.com.au
_______________________
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/3c/b6/09/d0/attachment.htm

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