Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Hammer Effect keyboards - Who`d have `em?

Years ago now, I was in the throes of changing my DP. It was `98 and I was keen to be shut of my CLP250 which, if you know the instrument, was pretty horrific for the price. 76 notes was OK, but the action was heavyish and it didn`t do stereo although it had left and right line outs . . ..

Working at the Crematorium, the Digital Organ there had a good non weighted keyboard. The keys were really long (you could tell when you pressed `em;) and it made for a much better playing experience. ALL my stuff was played easier and better on this keyboard; if it was a piano, light and shade wouldn`t have bothered me; I would have easily adapted to the sprung action and I reckon most would do the same.

Now, I did end up with the CLP 820 which was a good `un. But the keypad wasn`t hugely better . . .

Yes, I have much fun on my current piano. But I can`t help wondering if only . . . . !

Any thoughts?

Well the VAX77 controller doesn't have a hammer action, and it seems to have gained acceptance even with pianists (it has "constant force springs" which I assume means that the force that you feel as you press the key remains constant with key depth).

Greg.

Wow! That sounds cool! Gotta look into it . . .

Regardless of whether it has a hammer or not, to be pianistic an action needs to have key momentum (inertia). That is, you don't want the key chasing your finger as your release it. You want the finger to be able to get ahead of the key on release so that it can strike it again if necessary before it has fully released - thereby ensuring rapid repeats and also ensuring the dampers aren't triggered too early, which gives an unwanted staccato effect to the sound. If the VAX doesn't habe key momentum, and springs back readily, I don't believe it is really a suitable pianistic action - regardless of how much Stevie Wonder likes it (who is not a pianist, btw).

@ando: We're trying to think outside the box though - maybe a hammer action isn't the best design, overall, to produce a piano performance, assuming the performer is willing to accept the new design and practise with it. (btw the staccato thing, if that were a problem, might be able to be addressed in software, by enforcing a minimum note duration)

The fact that a real piano key returns slowly could be seen as a disadvantage/defect IMHO.

Greg.

The hammer design, maybe not, but the dynamic mass design which responds differently at different speeds and velocities, no, that needs to be there. (More on that below.)

\

Anything that applies a set parameter to a highly dynamic set of inputs will be a failure. No way having a minimum note value would work. Sometime you play with staccato, sometimes you don't. It needs to be highly adjustable. The inertia of the hammer/key system provides some of this feedback and time to adjust playing parameters.



No, it's not too slow or too fast, it's the right speed if it's set up properly. This is not a case of faster is better.

In general:

It's not about thinking outside the square, forging new keyboard paradigms etc. I'm talking about what happens when you play highly demanding repertoire on a keyboard that rebounds too quickly - it simply isn't comfortable. It results in less control, speed and accuracy. There are already keyboards of varying degrees of "springback". Although it might be different for different players, if they are playing pianistic repertoire the key inertia can't be too high or too low. There is a happy medium in there. The momentum of the hammer gives the sensation of dynamic weight which is a very useful feedback mechanism. No simple spring type, linear springback is going to offer that sort of feedback at different speeds and velocities.

It seems to me that there are a lot of engineer types around here who like to champion the cause of the "new" approaches, without acknowledging the fact that me have already seen the results of excessively slow and excessively fast key response. It also seems to me that those who resist the player's perspective on hammer momentum are those same engineering types who are not high level players themselves, don't play demanding repertoire and therefore have no real experiential basis of their own the evaluate this issue as a player. Playing slow, basic music doesn't test the issues concerned.

On the other hand, there are plenty of piano "engineers" (RPTs) who do understand why hammer weight and dynamic weight is important to players - as most are players themselves. They understand the physics of it much better than cross-disciplinary engineers without sufficient playing skills.

Ando: The minimum note duration idea would not prevent staccato - it would simply prevent notes from being more staccato than a real piano is capable of. (we'd disable that restriction for other instrument sounds, most likely) Also, it would only be necessary if the player could not adapt to the faster action. If the player can adapt, there's no need to restrict him.

I'm not at all convinced by the rest of your post either. I agree that pianists who want to keep on playing real pianos (and standard hammer action DPs) are best served by a very realistic hammer action, but that's not what I'm talking about - I (and peterws I think) are talking about completely throwing away all preconceptions of how a keyboard "should" feel like.

Greg.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but you and Peter are both self-confessed keyboard novices. You both argue from a theoretical perspective, not from a skilled musician's perspective. I don't intend that as an insult, but it is a major shortcoming in both of your arguments because you couldn't properly test your own hypothesis even if you could get your hands on one of these new-world actions.

Furthermore, I mentioned the importance of player feedback and dynamic control. I stated that any replacement would need to very capable in this regard. You aren't so much proposing a new action with improved player feedback, as proposing a simplified action with less player feedback. How can you claim that as such a great advancement? It's not thinking outside the square as you claim. It's a dumbing down of something better. You are dressing up your ideas as ground-breaking and expansive, but they are actually reductive. You are equating "different" with advancement. In order to do that, you have to argue the real merits of the device in question and show that it's an improvement, not just claim an ideology of inventiveness which hasn't been demonstrated. I'm more than happy to read about your ideas if they have content and address player concerns for feel and response. So far this thread has presented no new content. A linear-springed action? Seriously - that's supposed to be a whole new way of looking at things? That has been around for a long time. It's old!

Well, I was just saying there might be some merit in what peterws was saying, that's all. And I still think there might be - despite your objections.

The VAX77 uses "constant force" springs. Has any other keyboard ever used this idea? I'm genuinely interested to know. I know there have been "spring" actions, but the VAX77 is the first one I've heard of that uses "constant" force springs. (I have no idea when the "constant force" spring was invented - that may well be an ancient idea)

It is true - I would not be the best person to test out a new action design.

Greg.

I don't know if any keyboard has ever had constant force springs - although I have seen such springs in other applications. They have been around for at least 50 years and there are lots of situations where linear spring response is desirable. Every spring type keyboard I have played seemed pretty linear to me. That will happen if you use springs that are not compressed very much relative to their overall length. Unless there is some other meaning intended with these "constant force" springs. Can't really imagine what that is however. Could be that there is some sort of opposing spring arrangement which can provide the illusion of key mass/inertia (not speed!). If that were the case, that would indeed be interesting to try.

Ando: According to Hookes law, the force required to compress a spring is proportional to the distance it has been compressed, NOT the length of the spring: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke's_law

So, I don't think the length is relevant.



Greg.

I think the spring would be pretensioned. If it was long then the relative extra length when the key was depressed would qualify for "constant force". Almost (near enough for jazz, as they say).

Concerning opinions expressed here, which I respect and appreciate the reasoning behind, I can only reiterate the fact that this organ (spring loaded) keyboard was a dream to play. Now, a top grade acoustic in well maintained condition might be equal; but bear in mind the "average" player and the "average" acoustic are nothing like concert class, and it would be a mistake for teachers and pupils alike to think they could progress to the higher echelons of ability on such instruments.

I`ve been round loads of pianos of both types, and to get reasonably long keys, you need megabucks.

There`s no reason why this should be the case. But they`re thinkin` `bout the money, money, money . . . .

that is not correct, Greg. If the ratio of compressed length to overall length gets smaller it gets closer to a constant force spring. Of course it doesn't actually get there in reality, but it gets pretty close. If the compression distance is less than, say, 10% of the overall length, the force is fairly similar at both ends of that compression. If it's 50% however, the force differs greatly from one end to the other.

Ando: just perhaps, there is something in what you are saying - if the spring is so long that it is not operating in it's elastic region, then maybe. (if that's possible - I don't know) If it is operating in it's elastic region (obeys Hookes law), I don't understand how you could possibly be correct.

Greg.

Greg, I have a feeling you won't accept anything I say regardless of how I say it. Don't assume that I don't have a handle on my physics just because I'm a trained musician. I've studied more than music in my life.

Think of a long thin rubber band 20cm long. If you pull on it until it is taut, call that your zero mark, then pull 2cm past your zero mark and release back to your zero mark. The difference in force from the zero point to the 2cm point is really barely perceptible. This is an example of the proportion of travel vs the overall spring length. Try it and see. Over a small range of travel, it doesn't feel like Hookes law - even though it is still in effect.

An analogy: Concert grands with long piano keys have a more even touch than a small grand with shorter keys. In this case, you are talking about the ratio of the pressable key length to the key length to the pivot. Of course there is a difference in leverage from the front of the key to the back, but due to the long pivot distance, it is perceived as almost identical - and it is close enough to being the same.

It's all about proportions.

Ando: I suggest you describe your physics mathematically, and update the Wiki page for Hookes law accordingly.

Greg.

It's like talking to a brick wall with you, Greg.

I'll explain why I think your reasoning is flawed when I get off my awkward smartphone - I'm sorry for being so terse.

Greg

peterws, I have read your post, here:

Years ago now, I was in the throes of changing my DP. It was `98 and I was keen to be shut of my CLP250 which, if you know the instrument, was pretty horrific for the price. 76 notes was OK, but the action was heavyish and it didn`t do stereo although it had left and right line outs . . ..

Working at the Crematorium, the Digital Organ there had a good non weighted keyboard. The keys were really long (you could tell when you pressed `em;) and it made for a much better playing experience. ALL my stuff was played easier and better on this keyboard; if it was a piano, light and shade wouldn`t have bothered me; I would have easily adapted to the sprung action and I reckon most would do the same.

Now, I did end up with the CLP 820 which was a good `un. But the keypad wasn`t hugely better . . .

Yes, I have much fun on my current piano. But I can`t help wondering if only . . . . !

Any thoughts?

___________________________________________________

Yes, peterws, I have thoughts.


When I read: Years ago now, I was in the throes of changing my DP. It was `98 and I was keen to be shut of my CLP250...

peterws: For the first time ever, I thought that maybe I should look at my Clavinova - so I did and it is a CLP 50. Does that mean that my CLP 50 is pretty old? I bought it for a small fortune new maybe 20 years or more - 88 weighted keys.

It seems fine to me. I think it is so old that you can't easily ever connect it to a computer.


When you say: The keys were really long (you could tell when you pressed `em;) and it made for a much better playing experience.

I don't understand. There are piano/digital keys with weighted keys - are all the same size - normal??? - and there are keys on keyboards that are shorter spring loaded as opposed to weighted keys and often less than 88 keys. So are there really long keys that I haven't seen?

And you go on to say: ALL my stuff was played easier and better on this keyboard; if it was a piano, light and shade wouldn`t have bothered me; I would have easily adapted to the sprung action and I reckon most would do the same.

Now, I did end up with the CLP 820 which was a good `un. But the keypad wasn`t hugely better . . .

Yes, I have much fun on my current piano. But I can`t help wondering if only . . . . !

Any thoughts?

peterws: So am I understanding that if you had a spring loaded keyboard with piano length keys that would be better to play -- and if the keyboards of today with spring loaded keys were piano length - it wouldn't matter as much that they were spring loaded because it is all about the length and not them being weighted that make for better play?

My answer is yes and no. Yes, it may be okay for some, no, it would not be better because playing the piano is about the action and key length is less important.

As I have said before in posts, I would like a 48 keys keyboard with weighted keys - piano keys. At worst, I would accept a weighted keys keyboard with smaller/shorter keys, but it would be awefull because playing is all about hand position and octave reach and it would be off if the keys were smaller and shorter.

And, to me, there is nothing nice about spring loaded keys unless you want to try to be an organist or play organ music regardless of the lengthy of the keys.

cheers,

Michael, these weren`t just any ole spring loaded keys. They belonged to a prototype digital organ, built to the previous organist`s specification, and it cost the price of a house. Honest! It wasn`t worth the money, that bit is certain.

But the key length is crucial to easy playing. Now, I understand that so many talented folk out there are doing marvellous and intricate stuff on the meanest of piano keyboards. They are heroes. Some of us need all the help we can get!

I think the best digital keyboard I`ve had a go at, was on the Yammy CP1. It cost £4k . . . . .might get it for 3 these days if yer lucky!