<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>I’ve changed the subject line and trimmed a bit.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Let me elaborate on this issue a bit. The reason given for using the crescendo punching is that because of its relative lack of compressibility that we can set more precise aftertouch and more precise aftertouch must be better. The normal density punching can be compressed by .035” whereas the Crescendo can only be compressed .015”. Thus, there can be a variability of .020” in the aftertouch. Less variability means more precise regulation which means a better performing piano.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>The playing reality is that punchings are never compressed to their maximum or even close to it, probably, because how we test the compressibility of a punching bears no resemblance to how a pianist presses down on the key. Sure, on a big press it down and hold it into the keybed fortissimo, you might get closer to maximum compressibility. But with that type of playing, the difference in aftertouch owing to how much you’ve squashed that punching is really of no consequence. Most of the time, the softer punching is likely not compressed that much at all. Most fortes (at least musical ones) are played with a springing motion, acceleration/relax, almost an upward motion springing off the bottom of the key, not a push the key into the floor (except for theatrics) type of motion. The compressibility of the punching unless it is really excessive will have no bearing on efficiency of playing. On softer playing, the compressibility is even less of an issue. I would imagine that not one technician out there who has ever done a thorough regulation job using a traditional, quality punching has had a complaint about unpredictable aftertouch or lack of security at the bottom of the keystroke.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>The question about using these punching should not come from the piano technician’s perspective about how easy it is to set a precise aftertouch. There are many things that aren’t easy to judge: at what key movement is down weight and upweight determined, for example. Should the key creep down ever so slowly, fall at a modest pace? How fast should the hammer rise with the repetition spring? Modestly fast, very fast, slowly, should we feel a small bump, a large one, or none at all? Judgment calls are made all the time about regulation, voicing, tuning…, this is no different. Aftertouch, for me, is set with modest pressure on the punching. I do it by feel and can gauge an even feel of pressure after all these years of doing it. Some prefer to use a weight, that’s fine. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>The question about using Crescendo punchings should not be based on how accurately we can set aftertouch. It should be based on whether the pianist likes a hard(er) landing or a soft(er) one. Since many pianists cannot identify different parts of the key stroke and focus in on what they are feeling on their own, it’s something that should be pointed out so they can decide for themselves. Just like touchweight, landing preferences will vary and on any customized job it is yet another component.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Sometimes pianists are at first impressed by something which is simply different. I don’t believe in keeping secrets from them. The more they learn about what exactly they are feeling the better they can focus in on it, decide if it’s something they really want, and communicate that effectively. Makes my job of giving them what they want (not what I want) a lot easier. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><div>David Love<o:p></o:p>www.davidlovepianos.com<o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:56 AM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Hammer Blow<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>I’ve removed probably four sets that I’ve installed because the pianists complained that it bothered their fingers.  All of these pianists practiced a fair amount.   Two sets I removed after installing them in the shop because they were noisy.  I probably have about 2-3 other sets still installed.  Two of those sets are in pianos that aren’t played that much.  I’m not sure about the other set.  I use the woven light green punchings which I get from Pianotek.  They are very nice quality.  In all the years prior to the Crescendo punchings coming out I never once had anyone complain that the aftertouch was inexact (at least not on a piano that had been regulated) or that the punching was too squishy and left them feeling insecure at the bottom of the stroke.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I’m not trying to say don’t use them, I’m saying one should be cautious about jumping on the bandwagon that they are the latest greatest thing and belong on every piano.  They don’t.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>David Love<o:p></o:p><a href="http://www.davidlovepianos.com">www.davidlovepianos.com</a><o:p></o:p></div></body></html>