<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" = http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.3105.105" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV>I there was a "theme" to this year's convention IMHO, it was diagnosing = key ratios. Between Stanwood's all-day class and Richard Davenport's "What = if", incorrect key ratios have to be dealt with during our rebuilding procedures, or our problems will continue.</DIV> <DIV>The common plan of attack for a number of years has always been to add lead = when the key weight is too extreme (high). Even though we get the DW down = ... something always hinted that we were treating the symptoms and not the disease.</DIV> <DIV>Incorrect key ratio creates a = vicious cycle that affects everything. We have to learn to understand and correct = these problems and make them a normal part of the rebuilding procedure.</DIV> <DIV>Tom Servinksy,RPT </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> : = owner-pianotech@ptg.org [mailto:owner-pianotech@ptg.org]On Behalf Of Erwinspiano@AOL.COM Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 10:26 PM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: Lighter or = Heavier ? </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE>In a message dated 7/12/2002 = 4:20:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no writes: <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE="CITE">Subj:Re: Lighter or Heavier ? Date:7/12/2002 = 4:20:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:<A = href="mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no">Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no</= A> Reply-to:<A href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A> To:<A href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A> Sent from = the Internet         Hey Ric</BLOCKQUOTE>        I followed this = only briefly. Bussssy week. Oh my goodness! Any way There is an experience = I've had a few times with some actions where the key ratios and action ratios = were really good. Without getting into many measurements just let me say = that the effect was that even though static down weights approached 60 down on = my Symphony Stwy D (1940) and the upweights were a nice snappy 28-30. No = one has ever complained about the touch as being heavy.    John = O' Connor played it a time or two as well as others. and never a = complaint about the touch being heavy.  Seems to handle rapid passage work = effortlessly. It has some lead closer to the balance rail as it's a accelerated action.           = I've also learned  from installing new key sets with corrected key ratios = that less lead is used and similar results are attained. I believe  some = lead is required  to give the piansit some semblance of  a "the = normal feel" related to inertia and that some inertia IMO is desirable in a piano = action. Physics says were going to have some like it or not but is better = managed with efficient leverages.  When some of these systems are right it's = like a supercharged V-8.   My point is that the down weight upweight discussion takes on an entirely different parameters when things are = set up right as opposed to the funky key and action geometry we deal with day = in and out. Bottom line is that some action.key systems static weights may = seem high ( 60 over 30 ) but the dynamic effect when the keys are in motion = tells an entirely different and pleasant story.   Does that make sense = to any one but me?      >>>>Dale Erwin>>>>>>> <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE="CITE"> Thanks again Ed and Dave... and Stéphane for your interest Seems like we have two ideas about how inertia = levels affect the touch of the piano. On the one hand we've said several times the the higher the inertia the slower the action repetition... and this has been equated loosely with = terms like sluggishness and then from this perspective, heaviness. Then on = the other hand a bit more lead is said to perhaps lead to a lighter "feel" = due to the help inertia lends ones the key is in = motion. Interesting and to some degree conflicting lines of thinking. All and all it = leads one to think that Stanwood ideas are fine.... a great refinement in = relation to simple DW/UW measurements.. but perhaps should be refined = further to somehow put a number on inertia .... inertia = zones perhaps. I agree tho in the answers you two kindly voluntered that DW/UW has = a direct relationship to "touch" or "feel", yet that these are also = affected by other relationships. Thanks again... would have = liked to heard from others... but. :) Cheers RicB </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>