<!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 background=""> <DIV><FONT size=2>Comments interspespersed in bold:<BR><BR>----- = Original Message ----- <BR>From: Richard Brekne <BR>To: Pianotech <BR>Sent: = October 17, 2002 3:01 AM<BR>Subject: Re: To be or not to be: a heavy hammer<BR><BR><BR>Indeed one does not require any particularly low ratio = levels to regulate quite normally... until one approaches the highest levels of = the high SW zone<BR><BR><BR> I took the liberty of re-including the = rest of this statement as it is rather a decisive qualifier dont you think ? </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>No, I don't think it does.  The action = regulates purely as a function of action ratio, with some wiggle room.  The = SW zone has nothing to do with it.</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><BR>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.<BR><BR>With that above qualifier in mind, I find that the range = of dip available for 45 - 48 blow is considerably larger, also the amount of = aftertouch variers and can figure into this. I also find that it is no problem = regulating to 10 mm dip for a wider ratio range then you give. I also find that it = is the norm rather then the exception that pianists tastes in these matters, as = in virtually all others, vary. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>You can vary the aftertouch but you have more room on the = deeper side.  You need a minimum amount.  Tastes vary somewhat, = but not generally to the degree that it requires a wholesale change in the = targeted ratio.  </STRONG><BR>  <BR>So let's do the math.  Let's = take note 18 in high strike weight zone.<BR><BR>After re-inclusion of the = qualifier to my above statement, I find this example out of the scope which I drew up. = Indeed, I stated right out that when one reaches this highest level (and you = picked the absolute highest) one runs into problems. We could just as easily do the = same for the absolute lowest. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>But the issue doesn't exist at the lowest level in the same = way.  There are no concerns about exceeding front weight = maximums.  Anyway, my point in this was "why heavy hammers".  The example I = gave of a high zone hammer is something I recently saw on a Stanwood = project.  (One that I was asked to undo, BTW)</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><BR>Perhaps we should concentrate on what seems the jist of your = discussion ? You state that velocity can compensate for mass, and I question this. = You state that the range of dip is 10 mm to 10 mm :), blow, 45 - 48 mm, = ratio 5.75 - 5.85, aftertouch (?), and I question this as well. You state that the SW = zone should be limited to a range of low mediums to mid mediums, and that = heavier then that leads exclusively to more loudness, which you define = seemingly  as a negative quality, and all kinds of regulation problems. (based on = the range of parameters you give above) You also claim that the lightest = controlable pppp playing is accomplished with very light hammers, and I question these as = well. <BR>Now what I get out of all this is that you define a very narrow set = of regulation and action ratio parameters that you personally prefer and = feel yeilds always the best sound, and you feel anything out of this range = is... wrong. Is that correct ? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>It's a bit jumbled.  But in short, I think that = regulation rules in terms of decision making on actions.  The rest must fall = within the area where regulation requirements can be met.  I don't think I said anything about restricting weights to low mediums.  I think the ideal regulation happens with an action = ratio of 5.75 - 5.85.  You can do the math from there to figure out the = highest strike weight zone that will keep you in the ballpark when you = factor in desired balance weight and front weight.  Pushing up the strike = weights to high zones for the sake of aleged tonal benefits creates = other problems that, in my opinion, are not adequately solved by the currently = employed protocols.</STRONG><BR>  <BR>  <BR>Whether you = like the sound or not is a different matter entirely.... and falls within the = realm of personal taste does it not ? I find it odd that "taste" or "feel" is so = often dismissed in these discussions as irrelevant.<BR>David.... that is = exactly my point. Pianists tastes for touch and sound vary largely. <BR>Gotta go to = work now, but I would end this one by saying that the specs argument (which = perhaps at least half of this this boils down to)  has gone on for ages and = will not be solved here. Manufacturers give recommended specs, and they are = not written in iron. Bob Hofs article series on action elevations shows = clearly the dependancy these have on the distance between string heights and key = bed. And thats just the start of it. No... in this I agree entirely with our = friend from Texas whose opinions on tuning and ETD related subject matter I enjoy so = much and often disagree with. Its not a perfect world. <BR>  </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Pianists tastes in touch and sound do vary, but not as = largely as you think in terms of what is needed as far as design.  You can = achieve a wide enough range of touch and tone within the parameters that I've = outlined to accomodate 99% of the pianists.  Similarly with tone.  The = designs I see that incorporate high strike weight zone hammers, I believe, have a = more limited range of who they will accomodate and so I would not advocate = them as a standard approach.</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>David Love</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-- <BR>Richard Brekne <BR>RPT, N.P.T.F. <BR>UiB, Bergen, Norway <BR>mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no <BR>http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html <BR>  </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>