<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>All in a row</title></head><body> <blockquote>At 2:57 AM +1100 11/10/01, Ron Overs wrote: <blockquote type="cite" cite> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Dr. Walter Pfeiffer makes a pretty good case for having all the balance pins in one row.  You could probably save yourself a good deal of unnecessary heartache and labour by reading him on this subject.</blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>I read that too from the good Doc, but I don't agree with him in this instance. Check out what happens on a speadsheet JD, you'll be amazed at the variation in ratio should the balance pins be all placed in the one line.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>What's your view on this subject David Stanwood?</blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>At 4:23 PM +0000 11/9/01, David Stanwood wrote: <blockquote type="cite" cite>I'm glad you asked. I just did an experiment with my front weight scale jig on a Steinway Action model.  If the Natural Key Weight Ratio is .51 and the sharp balance rail pin is in the same position as the natural that makes the sharp KR .69.</blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>I pivoted the key this way and the Strike Weight Ratio figured out to 7.5 on the sharp as compared to 5.5 on the natural.  From much experiance studying actions I've found that a 7.5 ratio makes for unbelievebly heavy dynamic touch requiring enormous amounts of key lead to balance to a normal Down Weight with very high friction weight and extremely shallow dip with jacks that lock up in the repetition window when the key is depressed down onto the front punching.  A sure recipe for "heartache and Labour"...as far as the pianist is concerned.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>So I disagree with Pfeiffer on this point.</blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>Well it's not Pfeiffer exactly that you're disagreeing with except in so far as he says "There is no doubt that these advantages are actually present".  In order to disagree with the principle you will need to come up with a reasoned refutation of the points made in the claims he adduces, and I think you might find that less easy than your flat dismissals, so I append the extract in question to refresh your dim memories of it.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>There is indeed no doubt that these advantages exist.  So far as the weighting of the keys is concerned, the normal practice of adding lead and/or springs to achieve a given static down-weight measured at the frontmost point of each key is, from the engineer's point of view, rational but it can be considered nothing more than arbitrary and will in no case result in equal touch weight so far as any player is concerned, since each key for every player will have a range of different touch weights and touch depths depending on what he is playing and how he plays.  A player who is used to playing a 7' grand with long keys will notice he has to adjust his technique when he sits at a slim Schimmell upright, since the range of weights will be noticeably wider, but he is quite accustomed to encountering a downweight of 100 grams and more even when playing the white keys between the sharps on a grand piano.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>I'm not, of course, suggesting that studies should be carried out to determine the ideal down-weight individually for each key according to the mean point at which it is attacked by the average competent player!  But I do say that I see no reason why the sharps should not be weighed off heavier than the naturals and up to certain point the difference would not be noticed.  David's point about excessive lead being needed is valid only in the theoretical world of the technician, which to some extent we all inhabit.  Pianists are annoyed a lot by imperfect set-up and regulation, by excessive friction in the action, by sluggishness owing to too heavy hammers and too much lead, but touch weight by itself is not often a cause of annoyance and the complaint of "heaviness" rarely stems from just the weights being wrong.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>In spite of what I said above, I think it would actually be interesting to know at what point on average, and in different circumstances, each key does get hit and it would nowadays not be very difficult to make a keyboard that would record this information accurately.  Somehow or another it would probably help us.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>JD</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>        We might at this point also cite a suggestion made by L. Chwatal in Merseburg in an article entitled ³An Antiquated Principle in Piano Designing² [³Ein alter Zopf in der Klavierkonstruktion²], published in the 1905-1906 volume of the [magazine] Zeitschrift für Instrumentenbau. Chwatal makes reference to the well-known fact that when playing the piano in certain keys the position of the fingers is frequently such that the points of attack on the white keys lie further back than those on the black keys, a circumstance which naturally would make the relationship between the weight of the touch on the white and black keys appear extremely adverse. In order to compensate for this to some extent, Chwatal advocates abandoning the arrangement of the balance pins in two rows, having all the pins in one row as in organ keyboards, so that adjacent points of attack have the same key dip and the same weight of touch.</blockquote> <blockquote>        A number of years later a pianist named Emil Olbuch expressed the same thoughts11, although proceeding more from [the standpoint of] other considerations. Since the carrying out of this suggestion would present no mechanical problems worth mentioning, the question thus posed should be resolved not by the builder of the piano but rather by the artist who plays it. The advantages offered by the arrangement of the balance pins in a single row are pointed out in the following remarks, taken from a book by Ludwig Riemann:</blockquote> <blockquote>        "The great difference in height between the white and black keys on a modern day piano stands very much in the way of a uniform playing technique. "With the old [type of] keyboard the balance pins for the shorter black keys lie in a second row behind [those for the white keys].  This results in an equal amount of key dip, about 1 cm, for both the white and black keys and - provided the keys have been well balanced - an equal weight of touch. This arrangement is considered correct, and it would be correct if the short thumb played exclusively on the white keys and the long fingers exclusively on the black keys.  However, this manner of playing is rare and it is much more frequently the case that the long fingers play on the white keys in close proximity to the black keys or in between them, or else use the white and black keys in various combinations.  Owing to the leverlike character of the keys, their downward travel undergoes a constant decrease toward the balance point while the weight of the touch increases correspondingly, and so at the place where the white keys appear between the black keys, the former already have at least 2 mm less dip and a heavier touch than the latter.  In changing back and forth from the white keys to the black keys, the fingers encounter differences in touch. This frequently becomes more pronounced when playing certain chords - such as C# E G A G# - in which it is necessary for the long fingers to strike the inner portion of the white keys, resulting in differences in key dip of from 6 to 7 mm as well as variations in the weight of the touch.  It is this deeper downward stroke of the black keys which necessitates their extraordinary height, and both circumstances are responsible for the fact that the thumb must circumvent the black keys at every turn, so that playing becomes quite complicated, and for the fact that even recent attempts to replace this complicated fingering with a straightforward, natural one have met with nothing more than succès d'estime.  Here is where the Olhrich keyboard steps in to rectify the situation.  Since there is no plausible reason why the black keys should have a dip and weight of touch different from that of the adjacent small portion of the white keys, the key dip and the weight of touch of the two types of keys is equalized by consolidating the arrangement of the balance pins and by balancing the keys, and the black keys themselves, having a shallower dip, are made 2 to 3 mm lower.  And now order prevails throughout the keyboard: the touch is uniform under all circumstances. The following important advantages result from this design: 1. One can immediately play on this keyboard in the usual manner without preliminary practice.  The eye scarcely notices the lowering of the black keys.  The fingers can feel it, but the sensation is a pleasant one, particularly when playing rapidly, when playing chromatic octave runs etc., since they do not need to be raised so high in order to use the black keys.  2. The portion  of the white keys in between the black keys is easier to get at, a welcome improvement for those with thick fingers. 3. The changing from a black key to a white key and vice versa is more easily accomplished, which solves the problem of uniform fingering for all scales and consecutive chords. 4. It is a simple matter to execute double shakes in all keys with the sharped 23-15 or 24-15, play chromatic runs of thirds entirely with the fingering 13-24, play accents with the thumb, which is particularly well suited for this."</blockquote> <blockquote>        There is no doubt that these advantages are actually present; in spite of this, the author knows of no piano builder, even among those whose instruments are found in our concert halls, who sets his balance pins in one row.  Evidently this arrangement is used only here and there in exceptional cases. The situation here seems to be the same as with many other ideas and attempts in connection with the keyboard: these are not based on an actual[ly felt] need; in any case, it is unlikely that this system will ever be universally adopted, since the need is not of a sufficiently general and pressing nature. </blockquote> </blockquote> </body> </html>