Hey hey hey ~~ ! we find ourselves in perfect agreement for the second time in a day. Mayhaps this is the start of something ? :) Really tho... some of the tolerance ranges you hear are indeed pretty wide. And, as you say, you dont need as a result to go pushing the borders. You also bring up the whole subject of the speed ratio of parts... and myself I've hardly scratched the surface of that aside from the discussions we've had with Birkett about control issues. Whether one views it as a positive or a negative.... a lower ratio does imply that that same 10 mm of key dip results in a shorter hammer travel. Said another way... for equal key speeds... a lower ratio will see the hammer moving slower then a higher ratio in as much as it travels less distance in the same space of time. Perhaps thats good for control... to a point perhaps not. It lowers your power output to some degree.. tho this is usually countered by use of heavier hammers.... the circle stays unbroken thats for sure. Cheers RicB I am. I've always considered the Steinway guidelines more of a testimonial to their random outcomes than targets. Recently, for example, I inquired about the standard for flange pinning and was told that the acceptable "range" was .01 - 4 grams (that's on any given flange). I know that if I posted that myself no flamesuit would protect me. The older Steinway pianos had a much higher action ratio target with an accompanying lightweight hammer. Many would argue that the slightly shallower dip has its advantages in terms or rapid passagework. While I would not personally choose a 6.5 ratio as a target I would have to agree with Ric that an action that regulates at 10 mm dip and 45 or 46 mm blow is not likely to calculate out that far or anywhere close. Nor would it likely need anything exceptional in terms of a light hammer. This is keeping in mind that distance versus weight numbers to calculate SWR produce different results. David Love Hi David. And just for the record David Love... (are you listening ?) grin... I TOLD you David Stanwood and I disagree on some things. Make no mistake about it tho... I know Davids work and methods and he has all my respect. That said... I stand on my point here. David S.... You can not possibly mean to say that you take issue with the claim I make below. It is a matter of the simplest course that an action that regulates to a 10 mm dip, 46 mm blow, 1-2 mm let-off and good aftertouch can recieve an appropriate set of hammers for whatever existing strike weight ratio there is there. Such an action is per definition in the middle field to begin with.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC