<!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 6.00.2800.1491" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ed said: "<FONT face="Times New =
Roman"
size=3>Greetings, <BR> That original "light" touch may be =
due to
geometry, or it may be small <BR>hammers. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>Yes, the original "light" =
touch was
due to the geometry. The original keys had a 1:1 ratio and small =
hammers,
(w/weird action!)</STRONG></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3>I don't know
what you mean by "modern", (and I assume it is a
grand), </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>You must have missed my =
numerous
posts, regarding this piano.<G> With the aid of Rick Wheeler, a =
completely
new, (Renner/Wheeler), action has been built. The key ratio is more 2:1 =
now.
Yes, it is a grand...1867 Chickering, Flat Strung,
8'.</STRONG></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3> <BR>but
if you greatly increase key weight, for any reason, you will change the
<BR>character of the touch. Key weight, when taken too far, will =
slow the
action <BR>down, as well as creating an inertial point of diminishing
returns. By this I <BR>mean, too much lead may make the action =
easier to
play at softer dynamics, but <BR>as the pianist attempts to play louder, =
(which
means more accleration of the <BR>key and key speed), the inertial =
resistance of
the lead becomes a major factor <BR>in the =
resistance. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3><STRONG>This is
exactly my thinking. I'm going to find out where that "diminishing =
returns"
lies, as I progress with this.<G> Hence, the reason for my
post!<G></STRONG><BR> I would take around 50 grams at =
C 4 to
be a maximum downweight, and see <BR>what the geometry creates on your
upweight. The action itself will let you know <BR>how much blow =
and dip
are reasonable, so without changing them, you will be <BR>looking at a =
balancing
act between hammer weight and key weight. The smaller <BR>the =
piano, the
less hammer weight you can use." </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3><STRONG>Please
explain your last statement?!! Not sure what the size of the piano has =
to do
with anything. I would think that the length of the key, (keybed/cavity) =
would
be the determining factor. I was thinking in terms of 50 grams, as well, =
but
just wanted some feed-back. As for blow and dip, that has been part of =
the
"redesign". Oh, BTW, the only thing that is part of the original piano =
action
is, what is left of the key frame after new rails, etc. were installed. =
As these
are "raw" keys, (w/o any lead), the job of doing the "balancing act" is =
next.
Also, I've gone through the entire action, regarding action centers =
resistance
and addressing all friction points. At this point I am checking the
UW/DW....recording it, and determining where there may still be =
some
friction problems, if any. (I've always thought that most pianos were =
"weighted"
w/o regard to enough factors or proper addressing of initial friction. I =
don't
want to make that mistake, thankyouverymuch.<G>) The action has =
it's first
regulation, but as yet, has not had the "stress machine"
applied.<G>("stress machine" is my name for my Key Pounder =
Mechanism, that
I use for settling the action, etc.)</STRONG><BR>Good
luck,</FONT><BR><STRONG>Thanks! I need =
it!<G></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>Regards,</STRONG></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Joe Garrett, R.P.T.<BR>Captain, Tool
Police<BR>Squares R I</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>