<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; =
charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Well Richard, it sounds like you already paid David =
for the
licensing. There was a lot of stuff to wade through, I just =
addressed
the main points.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Your comments are in italics:</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>Indeed one does not require any particularly low ratio levels =
to
regulate quite normally... </EM></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>My point is that low ratios will not regulate =
normally.
If you happen to believe, as I do, that certain regulation parameters =
correlate
to certain action ratios, then there is a narrow range of acceptable =
action
ratios that you can use if regulation is a high priority. With me, =
it
is. I think that an action should regulate with 10 mm dip and 45 - =
48 mm
blow. There may be a few individuals who for some reason =
prefer the
dip to be deeper. Those individuals are exceptions (in my opinion) =
and
should not form the basis of decisions made about how generally to set =
up an
action. My experience and testing suggests that the range for of =
action
ratios that will allow you to achieve those regulation specs
fall between 5.75 and 5.85. I know =
many individuals are
willing to take the ratio down to 5.5, or lower. If they are set =
on 10 mm
dip then they will have to compromise blow distance to do
that. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>So let's do the math. Let's take note 18 =
in high
strike weight zone. Using the Stanwood charts, that brings the SW =
in at 14
grams. Following the formula:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>FW = (R x SW) + (KR x WW) - BW (if my memory =
serves
me)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>and plugging in the numbers using R = 5.75, SW = =
14, KR = .52,
WW = 18. BW = 40, then if I do my math correctly, FW = 49.6 =
grams. That's
12.6 grams over Stanwood's published maximum of 37 grams for that
note. Take the BW down to 38 where I normally set it up and =
you can
add two more grams to the FW. To get the FW down to the maximum =
you would
need either an R of 4.85 which would put your key dip around
1/2". Or you could push the BW up to 53 which would put the
downweight (assuming 15 grams of friction at that end of the keyboard) =
of 68
grams! Not acceptable. Or, you could add an assist spring to =
compensate for 13 grams of FW, keeping the FW's at maximum. =
Or some
combination of the above. All this in order to reap the tonal =
benefits of a high strike weight zone hammer? I've put clips on a =
hammer
shank to change the SW and I can hear the difference. It's
louder. So what. Give me quality over quantity. =
What I
have seen to accomplish a design like this is an action ratio down =
in the
5.3 range with an assist spring compensating for 15 grams of FW and thus =
a FW
comfortably under maximums. The action regulates with
11+ mm of dip or 40 mm of blow. Those are a lot of =
contortions
to go through for a tonal benefit that I believe isn't even there. =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Take that same note in a medium SW zone at 10.7 =
grams
(from Stanwood charts) and that brings the FW in at 31 grams, 6 grams =
under the
maximum where you can easily take the balance weight up or down and =
maintain a
relatively low inertia action that regulates with standard =
specs.
Why mess with success.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I am more inclined to think that high strike weight =
zone
hammers are an attempt to compensate for poorly designed =
soundboards. So
instead of just a bad sound, you now have a bigger bad =
sound. On
a well designed soundboard, my experience and unscientific inclination =
is that a
medium weight hammer of proper density and resilience will produce =
everything
you need. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>Whether you like the sound or not is a different matter =
entirely....
and falls within the realm of personal taste does it not ? </EM></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I find it odd that "taste" or "feel" is so often =
dismissed in
these discussions as irrelevant. There are too many theoreticians =
in these
discussions and not enough pianists if you ask me. It's not hard =
to
manipulate a formula for the sake of some theory but I sometimes =
think that
technicians really interested in honing their craft to a high level =
would be
well served spending more time developing their pianistic
skills. Even if you don't know the literature, you have to be =
able to
play like a pianist in order to understand what it is that you are =
trying to
create. All these theories are meaningless if the piano =
doesn't feel
right or sound right. And yes, we are not only allowed to make =
value
judgments about what constitutes good tone and a playable action, but =
must do it
if we are to have any credibility. With that, I don't think that =
setting
up actions is a crapshoot of accommodating personal tastes. I =
think
that 99% of the pianists we deal with want things within a certain =
range.
Regulation parameters, I believe, should fall within a very narrow =
range.
With the proper set up, exchanging a key lead for a bit higher balance =
weight or
vice versa should fall within the range of what is easily =
achievable on any
given piano, if you ask me, in the same way that we should be able =
to
manage the tonal palette up or down. The Horowitzes of the =
world are
exceptions in many ways. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>That's all for now.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>David Love</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>