Hi Ric, > >... er... Yes, you did. ;-) > > Er... what did I ... yes I did.. the above paragraph is not a denial of > anything at all... I am not sure at all we are on the same page here. We are. I see what you were saying. :-) > With respect Sarah... I doubt seriously any sound scientific method > includes claiming factuals without knowing whether there are indeed any > such facts documented. My reaction was to the statement as <<fact>> by > Ryan that. > > "The hammers with less friction will spend a slightly less amount of > time on the string. The more tightly pinned ones will stay on a > microsecond longer dampening out the highest partials." A HYPOTHESIS! (I didn't read his statement as one of fact, but rather one of conjecture, at least with respect to the effect on the highest partials.) > To which I replied simply lets see the documentation for such a claim. ... which you would like to see tested! ;-) Nothing unscientific so far. > You can not simply observe any of the above without some fairly > sophisticated equippement... so in my book, unless such testing has been > done and can be referenced we are still in the ballpark of conjecture. a.k.a. theorization Nuthin' wrong with any of this. > What we think or suspect is one thing... what we can actually observe is > that the vast majority of pianos that pianists choose to play on end up > haveing totall friction levels in about the 12-15 gram range. This is > old stuff... Spurlock released tables to this affect 30 years ago... > Stanwoods thousand pianos confirms the tendancy. This is something that > has already been observed. It is born out my my own experience, and > that of the vast majority of technicians I know. This overall friction > has a hammer flange componet of somewhere in or very close to the range > we have been talking about... hence the longstanding defacto industry > standard. Ah, but is the friction level what is important to pianists, or is it the rigidity of the bearings? We have empirical results, true, but these results give rise to more conjecture and more hypothesizing, and thus more testing is needed to clarify the above results. > Now... if we want to question the validity of those > observations... fine... but we have to do better then pure conjecture or > loose application of theory not necessarilly properly contexted. I have no doubt these are perfectly good and reliable data. But what do they *really* mean? > >But stepping outside the box, for a second, there's a problem of getting > >stuck in the groove of trying to optimize a technology that can only do just > >so much. Should we not be focusing on how to create tight, rigid, hard, > >frictionless, noiseless, easily serviceable bearings, rather than using the > >same ol' technology of packing an oversized wooden hole with enough padding > >to take up the slack and not be *too* heavy in friction, seeking to find the > >optimal comprimise the is the least of all evils? > > > That depends very much on the above observational base material is valid > or not. As I have said.. my own experience tells me too little friction > is as bad as too much... except that it doesnt cause the hammer to > simply stop playing at all in the extreme. Now... that said... there are > some interesting points raised by those who adhere to the lowest > possible friction priority... those who rather would push to the limits > the stablity issue for the sake of that cause. New York Steinways > venture into this garden in a young affair at this point... and we will > just have to see what the public responds with. I suspect that about > 5-10 years down the line we will see that this was not such a good idea > after all... but I am willing to let the future speak for itself when it > comes down to it. If I understand correctly, the teflon-impregnated bushing cloth is more rigid than standard bushings. I am guessing the design intent is to preserve the same overall amount of rigidity, while reducing friction? Anyway, if the rigidity is preserved and the friction is lowered, your guess, as I understand it, is that pianists will prefer the older style of bushing with more friction, BECAUSE of the friction. Correct? (Just trying to understand.) If so, then you are indeed saying that pianists "like" friction in the action, at least to some extent, irrespective of action rigidity. This is certainly testable, and indeed Steinway's new line *is* an experiment. It will be interesting to see how well received this innovation becomes. I would venture a guess that pianists will like the lower friction bushings. The null hypothesis is that they could care less, either way. And thus we have a null hypothesis and two alternative hypotheses. There's our experiment, poorly controlled though it may be. If we wanted to do this experiment a bit better, we would retrofit a few NY Steinways with standard bushings and compare them to NY Steinways with the new-style bushings, doing our best to match the other characteristics between the two groups. Then see which pianos are preferred by performing artists. > As stated.. I rather place priority on the firmest blow possible that > keeps friction within established levels. Until I see something > conclusive to the contrary, I have to continue to believe that this > established level of friction is pleasing to most pianists because of > the particular combination of control factors it sets up. Even if we > accept for the moment that one does increase power for less friction to > the degrees asserted... the flip side of this is that it narrows the > amount of latidude the finger can exert to create everything inbetween > max and min.... which by all accounts means a reduction in control... or > a demand of just that much more control ability from the pianist side. ... meaning that you regard friction as good for friction's sake. Fair enough. This is indeed a personal preference issue, just like the long-standing softdrink wars: Which is better, Coke or Pepsi? There is no right or wrong answer, and both companies have their loyal customers. Perhaps there's room in this world for different action preferences/philosophies. If these preferences are divergent enough, there could even be a bifurcation in the instrument line. (The parallels to gene flow, isolation of populations, genetic drift, speciation, etc. are really kinda funny!) > >Bushing cloth may not be > >the best material! > > > > Pehaps not... but nothing more successfull has been used to date. I > keep saying the same thing about bridge pins.... :) But very little else has been tried. Some of the best and most compact bearings are jewel bearings, which actually aren't as pricey as most would believe. I bet an entire set of shanks could be fitted with OK-quality jewel bearings for under $1000. Then there's Teflon, which I understand weren't given a fair chance because of Steinway's poor attention to manufacturing and lack of support for the technicians servicing them. Then there are Steinway's new hybrid bearings that haven't yet had their review. Ball or needle bearing assemblies might be an appealing solution. Instead of support points being located in a horizontal plane, only a flange width apart, they could be located in a vertical plane, much farther apart. How about using low friction bearings of more conventional construction spread across a larger width. How? Stagger the flanges into upper and lower rows. How about doing away with hammers altogether and making both friction and rigidity irrelevant? Set the strings into motion with an electromagnetic pulse! It's probably not a practical idea, but it could certainly be done. There's sooooo much that hasn't been tried. If valve manufacturers were as conservative as piano manufacturers, all our water valves would still have washers on the end of the stem and stuffing around the middle (just like there is "stuffing" around the centerpin), and they would squeak and drip, just like in the good ol' days . > >What if all the hammer bushings could be replaced in the > >course of a half hour, without the need for painstaking fitting and > >refitting? What if total replacement of bushings were done every, say, 5-20 > >years (depending on usage), at a cost to the owner of perhaps $100. Isn't > >that where we should be headed? > > > Grin... I am sure everyone would love to see the day maintaince on an > appropriatly functioning bushing was so simple. Then why shoudn't it be??? It's not like we're designing a deep space probe, here. It's just bearings. > >Perhaps ol' Horowitz had some infuence on them, as their official > >spokesartist. ;-) > > > Nobody could play his piano but himself. Hell.. you could blow the keys > down much like you blow out candles in a birthday cake. Nope... not > what I call a good idea. LOL! You're probably right. I would have probably hated his piano, but more because of the fly-weight hammers than anything else. BUT.... Consider this: If I were to have tried out the Horowitz piano, it would have been with a piece that I already learned and practiced on another piano. I can't speak for others, but my motor memory is quite specific to action. I try to practice occasionally on unfamiliar pianos to broaden the scope of pianos on which I am able to perform. However, if I were to try a piano that is totally out there in left field, I probably couldn't play very many pieces very well. I'd give up in frustration. BUT what if I had learned and practiced a piece on the Horowitz piano? Then would it be a different story? Would I be capable of playing pieces that are currently just over my head? Now let's take this a bit further... What if I had learned to play piano exclusively on Horowitz-type pianos? Would I be a better pianist today? Would I think as little about non-Horowitz pianos as you do about the infamous "D." Until these questions are addressed, we do not *really* know the relative merits of a Horowitz-type action. It's going to take more than a pianist spending a few minutes with a piano and declaring, "It's junk. Next piano, please!" I'm not trying to be argumentative, so much as to encourage folks to notice the forest, not just "the" tree. All this is food for thought. Peace, Sarah
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC