<!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 6.00.2900.3132" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE>@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 77.95pt 1.0in 77.95pt; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } P.MsoPlainText { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New" } LI.MsoPlainText { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New" } DIV.MsoPlainText { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New" } P { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } SPAN.emailstyle17 { COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial } SPAN.emailstyle19 { COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial } SPAN.EmailStyle20 { COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } </STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue> <DIV dir=ltr align=left>I've never studied Stanwood and it causes the head to spin to try to follow what you all are talking about. I am definitely saving these exchanges in my archives for when I am able to study it a little closer. But it is very interesting to me, and I have dabbled a little in adjusting touchweights. The more you do this stuff, the more intuitive it becomes, I guess. So I continue to try to follow the threads and immerse myself in the terminology. </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left>Action spread has always one of those great mystery areas. The first guy to train me (who it turned out knew very little about pianos) warned me to never touch it. So for many years I considered it a big taboo, which was probably not a bad thing. </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left>Since these things do get intuitive I know it is hard to quantify, but can we try? We change action spread to make sure the jack is properly aligned with the knuckle. It must be done judiciously as it also causes changes in the action ratio, that is the amount of key movement to the amount of hammer movement. Then there is something called magic line that I have a vague  understanding of. </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left>For an intermediate regulator such as myself, i.e., one who is not going to make extensive geometry changes like moving capstans, knuckles or altering heels, are there any other criteria one should consider in setting action spread? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV align=left> Dean<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:PersonName w:st="on">Dean May</st1:PersonName>             cell 812.239.3359 <o:p></o:p> PianoRebuilders.com   812.235.5272 <o:p></o:p> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Terre Haute</st1:City> <st1:State w:st="on">IN</st1:State>  <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">47802</st1:PostalCode></st1:place></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left> <HR tabIndex=-1> From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 11:36 PM To: 'Pianotech List' Subject: RE: Action Ratio and Dip and Blow and Etc. </DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=Section1> Terry:   Like Jon mentioned, check the regulation by sample.  A 41 BW with ½ FW max makes me a bit nervous that the action ratio might be too low and will not regulate without excessive key dip.  The low ratio might be a function of the increased action spread.  I believe Renner parts (if that’s what you are using) are designed to have a spread of 113.5 mm.    My entire range of BWs is 34 to 42.  I use 34 when the customer has hand issues and needs something very light.  With 14 grams of friction in the low bass you will still have 20 grams of upweight.  That’s my absolute minimum.  I will go up to 42 if, for some reason, someone wants it pretty heavy and meaty.  I have some customers who are just really big, strong muscular pianists and that kind of weight suits them better.  Some people believe that heavier touchweights are good for muscle devlopement (I don’t agree) and some concert players simply don’t want to ever go to a piano that is a surprise heavy action.  They want to be sure that their own piano is heavier than anything they are likely to encounter.  My preference for 37 is derived empirically.  I prefer actions just a shade on the light side.  With concert grands I may go 38 or 39 because I might need a slightly heavier hammer and because concert pianists have to deal with adrenaline which can make a too light action a problem.  Under normal relaxed playing, I prefer my hands and arms to remain completely relaxed.  A touchweight that allows for total relaxation through the hands, wrists, forearms and upper arms and allows the pianist to play with relaxed weight rather than muscular force produces the best tone.        High upweight is not a concern except as it relates to overall BW.  High upweight can be a function of unusually low friction.  After actions leave the shop the friction generally doesn't remain so low.  Your 50/32 could very easily turn into 52/30.  I prefer a DW of 48 in the middle of the piano.  Others may not agree.  A 37g BW which comes out 48/26 with approximately 80% FW max would be a very player friendly action—especially if it regulated properly.   Your question about “normal” lead I don’t quite understand.  Forget about normal for a minute.  The 3-2-1-0 pattern is not necessarily “normal”.  Many of Stanwood’s actions have a 4-3-2-1 pattern but the leads are located more toward the balance rail.  The improvement in inertia and speed of return is arguably worth it.  The low FW that you currently have is because the two leads are located more toward the balance rail.  Typically, a two leaded key in that position would have the leads in the forward position, the ones that you removed.  If you were to decide to reduce the BW I would add one lead on the balance rail side of the existing two leads.  A 12-13 gram lead in that position would reduce the BW by about 4-5 grams.  There’s no reason to try and change the BW by altering the action ratio.  It may already be too low, it certainly isn’t too high.  Action ratios, among other things, will be a determinant in how the action regulates.    Imagine a simple lever: a teeter-totter.  With two people each weighing 100 lbs sitting on each side with the fulcrum in the middle, they will balance each other and when they go up and down, they will travel the same distance.  Move the fulcrum toward one end so that the distance from the fulcrum to the end is twice as long on one side as the other and the amount for force required to lift the person on the shorter side has been reduced by one-half.  Now it will only take a 50lb person on the long side to balance the 100 lb person on the short side.  However, the distance the person travels on the short side relative to the distance the person travels on the long side will have also been reduced by one-half.  In effect, you have reduced the BW by changing the leverage but because the distance traveled on the short side has also changed you have, in effect, changed the regulation.  Now the person on the long side will have to travel through twice as long an arc to get the person on the short side to travel the same distance that they had before.  In other words, you will need more dip.   That’s the trade off.  In your case, you don’t need to make that change.  Figure out with what arrangement the action will regulate properly.  Always do that first.  Then figure out if it will balance and with what SW and FW.  If they don’t fit into your touchweight goals then either change the SW by reducing hammer weight or settle for a slightly higher FW while still keeping things under maximums or settle for a higher BW or some combination.    And Jon is also right about when it ends.  It doesn’t.  On the next action you get to start all over.        David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com     -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Farrell Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 2:44 AM To: Pianotech List Subject: Re: Action Ratio and Dip and Blow and Etc.   Snip…   Seem like the only thing concerning me is my high Up Weight and Balance Weight. Are these a real concern? Why/how would the action perform better if I were able to get BW down to 37g (or there abouts) and reduce UW to 25g or so - all, or course, without changing  leading, SW and DW? Seems to me the only way to potentially do that would be changing the action ratio - but how - capstan, wip rail, knuckle?   And I still have the nagging question about key lead on this action: Why do I have such a very low FW, yet a "normal" amount of lead? This also has me scratching my head and worrying that something is horribly amiss elsewhere - again, the little bit I think I know about action balancing is that everything is a compromise - you don't get anything for free - the only way to pay Peter is to take from Paul.   Man, when does it end?    :-0   Thanks for all the input.   Terry Farrell ----- Original Message -----  </DIV></BODY></HTML>