Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Light Hammers- Computer Analysis of 3 Grand Piano Actions

As you said chernobieff, all three actions were uneven from note to note. I assume you improved the eveness before releasing the piano to an unsuspecting client.

Oh Yes,
All charts are before restoration and buying lots of lead.

I kind of see how both people have a point:


chernobieff is correct that weight matters, and you can't just remove all the weight from the keys and expect to have a good piano. Keeping the weights even across the keys will give you a better piano (compared to an uneven piano).

Ed McMorrow is correct that the sound coming out of the piano is important: it doesn't do much good to have even weights, if the volume coming out of the piano isn't even from note to note.

Cherbonieff, how self serving of you to talk to me like I am a drooling nincompoop. I know this will come as a complete surprise to you, but I can actually read both the graphs and the information in your action analysis program. I use another action analysis program on my own rebuilds. I graph my touch weighting in an Excel spreadsheet. But if you need to further state your superiority to me, I'm ok with that. I don't need to compare myself to you in a ******* contest.

You have since provided some of the information I originally was seeking in your subsequent posts.

My question was not frivolous. Certainly when we are going weigh off an action, we want several things to be there in order to get consistent and accurate readings. I will state things I am confident you already know - the action should be cleaned and lubricated, all action centers within reasonable specs, no tight key bushings, and the action in good regulation. Those are all things that can affect the values that the piano gives you. Since the Chickering and Steinway B are all original parts which have presumably worn a lot or very little over the years depending on the amount and kind of use, wear at any of the contact points will have bearing on the results. And how much wear was there on the hammers, since hammer weight is one of the most important factors in touch weight?

Likewise, it would make the readings on the rebuilt Steinway more meaningful to many of us to know what kind of hammer was used as the replacement, since hammer weights can vary so widely amongst the makers. Were the shanks or knuckles replaced?

And so on. What giving us more of that kind of detail does provide is context, which fleshes things out and makes it more meaningful.

Do you regard anything I asked for here as inappropriate or unreasonable?

Tone regulation properly done is an integrated process of developing tonal resources and action feel in a way that lets pianists perform music as they desire. It is never productive to separate regulating the tonal characteristics from touch control. My LightHammer Tone Regulation is the only system to integrate the two.

They was using up all kinds of piano measuring' equipment that they had hanging around the piano workshop. They was taking plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, and they took twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us. Took pictures of the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not to mention the aerial photography!

William,
Answers to your questions;
1) There weighed as they are
2)Ronsen.Yes
3)No. But the data speaks for itself.

If you can present data better, then lets see it!!

Can you explain the "in a way" part in more detail?

It seems to me that the integration of tone and touch to manipulate each other is a complication.

How does that integrated approach physically work exactly?

Do you take all weights out, then listen to the Hammers and lighten them one at a time?

Or do you lighten all hammers, then take weights out according to the tone?

Could it happen in your process that if a pianist didn't like a particular tone, that to fix it, a weight would have to go back in the key?

If the static downweight is uneven (as above), are you saying a pianist wouldn't feel that because their ear is fooling them?


Could you perhaps produce a video demonstrating the integration process and interaction with a pianist?
thanks

I don't know Ed McMorrow, RPT's process...

However, in general: the process of tone regulation includes the filing/shaping of the hammers. More importantly, the weight of the hammers need to be scaled to the piano; one doesn't simply throw on a new set of hammers without scaling how the weight changes throughout/between the sections. It is up to the piano technician to put them on, listen, and then make weight/shape changes to the hammer to balance out the overall sound.

Naturally, if one were to perfectly weigh-off/balanced the action before, it would no longer be after the tone regulation process. So, that's why the final balancing of an action must come after the tone regulation.

"There weighed as they are" Do you mean, "There, weighed as they are." If so, what "they are"? Or, did you mean, "They're weighed as they are". Still the same question. I don't understand what you are trying to say, honestly.

Ok, the hammers are Ronsen and the shanks or knuckles replaced.

I have no need to present the data better. I'm not trying to compete with you.

Without question, the data is useful. It certainly has its place. I just don't think it tells the whole story, particularly about the effect of inertia as part of the good and bad of what a pianist feels.

I believe that Ed McMorrow gets the results with his pianos that he talks about, although I have not heard or felt the action of his instruments. I had a lengthy phone conversation with Jim Ialeggio today, someone whom I know and respect for his fastidiousness and discernment. Jim spent a couple of days around Ed's instruments recently. We talked about Ed and his lighthammer methodology. The gist of what I got from the conversation is that what Ed is doing is very difficult to explain to others, particularly people with very linear and rational ways of problem solving and working (that's not a putdown by the way). That doesn't make them stupid or him wrong. It's just two sides not communicating effectively with each other. I think there is a lot of thought and methodology in what he does, but for now that doesn't come out fully. His success comes from intuition and sensitivity to the instrument. That'll drive a numbers guy insane (and apparently, it has!)

It's right brain, left brain conflict. Apollo and Dionysius. The great philosopher-mathematician Bertrand Russell and the equally famous novelist DH Lawrence were early 20th century antagonists. Russell derisively described Lawrence as a "headless body". Upon hearing that, Lawrence described Russell as a "bodiless head". The pure rationalist and the pure sensualist. Which, of course, neither of them were. We are all a mixture of both, the differences lie in which we favor the most.

We almost always argue using oversimplification, which limits the usefulness of what we say, because it describes the complexity of our world incompletely and, too often, with exaggeration and distortion.

By the way, larger hammers are not necessarily heavier hammers, particularly with older instruments. Size isn't everything. :-)

As I have said before. Starting the tone regulation process without, (or at least with very few once you are experienced at judging tone/touch and judging what your customer likes), key leads lets you sense the control of the hammer at the key. You lighten the hammers by shaping them everywhere but at the wearing dimension until you derive the weight that gives you proper pianissimo control. You don't even need to do it with the action in the piano once you are experienced. It depends greatly on having a hammer that is very similar to the traditions of NY Steinway as regards felt density/graduation.

The process I do now differs from what was in my book. I now start at the first note above the bass with a normal side taper and a decent removal of wood at the tail. Bringing the feel down to a decent response. Then I match the highest bass hammer to that tenor hammer with more tapering and tail shaping to get them to match. Then I continue with those hammer dimensions down to note 1.

(Edit; Clarifying addendum postscript) I should have included in the paragraph above that I do use the gram weights on the keys to get the highest bass hammer to match the tenor.

Then as I taper the treble I very slightly increase the removal of material as I move up the compass Also keep in mind the frequency chart. As you get to three digits in frequency,(1K hz), the hammers need to leave the strings very quickly for tone, so graduating them more steeply across the compass in weight reduction should kick with the middle 50's hammers. If the piano has a capo bar the unison strings can be spaced together slightly more than in the agraffe section, this lets you skinny up the higher treble hammers more and still have adequate width at the strike point.

Then you space everything up really well and shape the striking point with sandpaper and begin to evaluate how much, how thin and where in the treble you need to use stiffening solutions

I will back lead treble keys from about note 55 to 88. And yes I do use key weights to even out the touch from there. And often put in one lead and sometimes two located in the middle of the playing end of the key-stick. But once inertia is low enough, 2 to 3 grams difference from key to key is not noticed when playing.

The higher the inertia in an action-the more impossible dynamic tone, control, evenness, and durability become. The action is trying to tell you something if you let it.

Hi A443,
Yes i understand that, and you can go back and forth between tone regulation and action regulation to settle it in. Thats the way i was taught.

But Ed is talking about a different approach, with some kind of an integrated process and somehow he ends up with ultra light hammers and no weights in the key. And I have been trying to understand that gap.

Ed, I just read your post - thanks for putting some flesh on the bones you have been tossing us. It is now much more tangible and understandable.

I do want to be clear about this - at the beginning of the process, you have removed most or sometimes all the leads in the keys and plugged the holes. You are using a Ronsen Weikert felt? hammer that most closely resembles the older lightweight Steinway hammers of yesteryear. Presumably, you have some felt and wood removal to begin the process, based on your experience.

Thanks again. Hmmm....

Thank You Ed,
You certainly have developed an interesting method there. I appreciate you going into more detail about it.
I think I get it now, you have a certain feeling that you like, and you can duplicate that same feeling every action. You feel more connected to the hammer with out the weights there. Once you have that feel you then bring out the tone to play evenly throughout the dynamic range. With pianissimo being the ultimate goal.
Did I get It?
I guess we can all wait for the Revised edition of the Educated Piano with a video, right?
Thanks Ed

Will, I added a clarifying sentence to my previous post. I have used the three softest felts Ronsen offers and all work. I do use the silver maple moldings. They are the best. I also have Ray make the treble hammers narrower than the rest.

Will,

As I sat quietly and stared at my notes,trying to put my notes in a practical order, and having talked to Ed again today after our chat, I am finally seeing at least as a beginning, a way to begin using Ed's methodology in practical terms. It actually seems quite simple. As I use it in several straight up Lighthammer actions, this is how I will proceed.

Ed, feel free to correct me if I stray too close to the cliff..I will edit if necessary to avoid confusion.

preliminary - action leverage has been set up and committed. 9mm knuckle. In these first tests, which are home pianos, though Ed likes the feel of a 2" blow with a 15.5x9mm knuckle, which I measured as dip just shy of 10mm with a healthy .050-.06 or more aftertouch, I will be using something closer to my standard. 1.875 blow, 17mmx9mm knuckle(already had the actions configured), dip just shy of 10mm, 04-.05 aftertouch, close let off. As I experiment with this my regulation specs/leverage will change as/if I see it is required. I feel comfortable with these specs, as the pianos in Ed's showroom varied, as he has already said, in terms of leverage. Actually,some, including my favorite B, were lower leverage than Ed suggests, and were beautiful sounding, dynamically complete instruments which were a breeze to control.

1st step -All decisions are pianistic decisions. Starting at the tenor break, either with the last bass note or 1st tenor note:

-action on the bench
-no escapement(letoff button turned out of the way)
-bare shanks
-no leads
-armed with a collection of graduated weight spare hammers
-jack height and rep lever height in decent regulation

Find the sample hammer, at the tenor break (at proper shank length in above leverage configuration), which when played on the bench, no escapement, no key lead,at speed, meaning 8xish per second, pianissimo, gives the pianistic feeling of "constant contact" between the finger and shank/hammer, on both the up and down stroke. This "constant contact" on the up/down stroke seems to me to be the "measurable" quantity we are all looking for here. No feeling of looseness and slapping about on the up stroke caused by a key that is ahead of a slow hammer, and no resulting pianistically confusing collision, as the down stroke contacts the hammer which is lagging behind and moving in the opposite direction.

Mess with varying sample hammers,at proper shank length, until I find a hammer weight, or actually a range of hammer weights, that give that "constant contact" feeling.

Taking this feeling at the tenor break, match the weight/feeling of this uppermost bass hammer to the first tenor hammer. The appropriate strike weight for this hammer will be within a range of pianistically workable hammer weights, so graduate it down to #1, and up to #50-ish. At this point gradually reduce strike weights appropriate for undamped treble response...I already do this treble lightening so its more a question of avoiding being too conservative in weight removal.

The "constant contact" will have been established at the tenor break. Strike weights will of course vary as the they progress up and down the scale. So in order to maintain the same feeling of "constant contact" back lead the treble as is necessary to maintain similar overall key/action inertia (by feel). On the way down to #1, reduce strike weight so that static down weight at #1 is to a maximum of 70g with 1 or 2 leads mid key at #1.

As far as the fingers are concerned, there is a window of strike weights where the "constant contact" will be present.

From there mid-key, as/if necessary small amounts of lead to even out the elevated static weights. Tonal response will be coarsely addressed in the treble strike weight reduction, but in the evening out of static weights, fine tune the strike weights, strike profile, and key weights as required, in the piano.

This is how I will proceed as a first attempt. I, of coarse expect refinements to suggest themselves in the heat of battle.

I like drop very high, but Ed doesn't...so I will be messing with this aspect. This brings another key aspect of the overall goals to mind. Ed uses the feeling of escapement, specifically a clear but minimized bump as a goal post in his designs. I also seek that minimized bump. I achieve it with high drop, and of course low strike weights. I'm not quite sure whether Ed gets there with reduced weights alone or what other regulation spec helps him achieve it...but he definitely does achieve a really nice clear, but minimized bump at escapement. The 9mm knuckles have a lot to do with this minimized but clear "bump".

Anyway, hows that as a first stab?

Jim Ialeggio

Jim,
That was Poetry!!

Excellent Jim,
I don't test the feel using 8 reps per second. I test it by the single key speed that when repeated would give you about 8 reps. Or maybe even 5 reps. Just feel the start and stop of the hammer when playing "soft". You judge the "soft dynamics" by how far the hammer moves above what would be escapement if it was set. That way you are not confused by let-off bump. Then you can measure the hammer and use the dimensions to blend the whole set to the compass. They can really get light in the top octave.

Key leads slow the key down and make it easier for you to overshoot speed into the hammer. So I prefer to start the tone regulation work with almost none in most situations.

The idea is to graduate the inertia of the hammers to better fit the compass and to better fit the fingers. There is no magic number for the best hammer weight of any given note-the hammers must fit the leverage and the frequencies of the notes. Until you get into the high treble where as light as possible seems to work best. That is why I prefer higher leverage-so the touch has adequate resistance in the high treble and great tone.

I start with about as heavy a touch and dark a tone as I think my customer wants because you can always insert some key-leads and/or shape the hammers slightly more to reduce touch-weight. And you can use some felt stiffening solutions to bring up the brightness. Plus all actions get lighter and tighter from use. Of course, if the piano sits un-played the action could swell up some and become slow. But most of my customers play their pianos often. Many daily.

Trying to edit my previous post to correct my 8x/second test repetition to reflect Ed's correction above...but for some reason the "Edit" button is gone. Where'd it go???

To confirm, Ed, from you post above, you are simple testing through a number of repetitions at a reasonable playing speed...but not a slow, what I call "technician speed. Techs often use very slow key speeds to feel all the events in a key stroke, but you don't want that here. You are looking for musically representative playing and repetition speeds. Correct?

Jim Ialeggio

That is what I do Jim.