Pianotech

Observing parameters that break all the rules and perform really well, makes me wonder if I know anything at all, about what I think I know.

Specifically. Just finished a 1890's A-1..Came out really nice. Full belly, but for budget reasons only essential parts of the action that have the biggest bang tonally. So, the only action work in the contract was shanks (wng), backchecks (tokiwa), key bushings,and a full regulation and voicing.

The whips were old, but newer than original parts. They were not in the contract, so I didn't touch them. The hammer line was unstable, of course. Checked the spring slot. It and the spring were gunk'd up. Plus, a groove was worn into the rep lever. You could feel the spring grabbing in the worn groove.

For kicks, on one or two, I tried cleaning the gunk, burnishing the groove and added some lube. It had no effect. The spring still grabbed in the slot, and you could feel it. So, sticking to the contract, I accepted the unstable hammer line, and continued, lowering my expectations about what the action regulation would be like when done. Of course, given the whip's spring/rep lever condition, I expected lousy repetition, and was not going to fret about it.

15.5 x 9mm knuckles.  Slightly elevated AR 5.3. relatively light SW. Left the leading alone. leading was more than nothing but not a lot of lead either.

The repetition is bullet proof. This is a happy result, but leaves me feeling completely bornswaggled. Given the amount of time I normally spend messing with rep lever friction, spring tension and smooth spring sliding, struggling to get good, but still real picky repetition, this result, given the completely challenged spring and spring slot, makes me wonder if all the talk about whip springs and re lever friction is barking up the wrong tree. I think this result has something to do with the 15.5 x 9 knuckles, re the angles at which the jack addresses this knuckle geometry...but not sure. I sure would like to know...

The angle at which the jack addresses the knuckle is slightly different than what modern design calls for. Modern parts usually are set up so a line,  perpendicular to the shank through the knuckle core, projected toward the jack center, falls just distal to the jack center. at rest. This action's perpendicular line falls well distal to the jack center. This situation is similar to a Chickering 123 I did a couple of years ago, which also had bullet proof repetition, and the smoothest let off I ever achieved. 
     
Any thoughts on this?  


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

In my class this summer, I'm going to suggest we are in the "Middle Ages" as far as having a "universal field theory" of action touch response. People may be skilled craftsmen (male & female) but there are gaps both in our empirical knowledge and in our theories. So... we continue to do the best we can as we stitch together our experiences with the theoretical constructs that we currently have. 

What you are doing in this experience is contributing to our knowledge and challenging us to develop more comprehensive models of what actually happens and what really matters regarding action touch response.

------------------------------
Keith Akins
Akins Pianocraft
Menominee MI
715-775-0022
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2018 22:01
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Observing parameters that break all the rules and perform really well, makes me wonder if I know anything at all, about what I think I know.

Specifically. Just finished a 1890's A-1..Came out really nice. Full belly, but for budget reasons only essential parts of the action that have the biggest bang tonally. So, the only action work in the contract was shanks (wng), backchecks (tokiwa), key bushings,and a full regulation and voicing.

The whips were old, but newer than original parts. They were not in the contract, so I didn't touch them. The hammer line was unstable, of course. Checked the spring slot. It and the spring were gunk'd up. Plus, a groove was worn into the rep lever. You could feel the spring grabbing in the worn groove.

For kicks, on one or two, I tried cleaning the gunk, burnishing the groove and added some lube. It had no effect. The spring still grabbed in the slot, and you could feel it. So, sticking to the contract, I accepted the unstable hammer line, and continued, lowering my expectations about what the action regulation would be like when done. Of course, given the whip's spring/rep lever condition, I expected lousy repetition, and was not going to fret about it.

15.5 x 9mm knuckles.  Slightly elevated AR 5.3. relatively light SW. Left the leading alone. leading was more than nothing but not a lot of lead either.

The repetition is bullet proof. This is a happy result, but leaves me feeling completely bornswaggled. Given the amount of time I normally spend messing with rep lever friction, spring tension and smooth spring sliding, struggling to get good, but still real picky repetition, this result, given the completely challenged spring and spring slot, makes me wonder if all the talk about whip springs and re lever friction is barking up the wrong tree. I think this result has something to do with the 15.5 x 9 knuckles, re the angles at which the jack addresses this knuckle geometry...but not sure. I sure would like to know...

The angle at which the jack addresses the knuckle is slightly different than what modern design calls for. Modern parts usually are set up so a line,  perpendicular to the shank through the knuckle core, projected toward the jack center, falls just distal to the jack center. at rest. This action's perpendicular line falls well distal to the jack center. This situation is similar to a Chickering 123 I did a couple of years ago, which also had bullet proof repetition, and the smoothest let off I ever achieved.

Any thoughts on this?


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

Jim -
You didn't specify the rep lever pinning friction.  You didn't mention anything about excess jack friction, so I assume there wasn't any. I think it makes sense that this condition would not (necessarily) affect repetition, if you've done everything else (tail profile and length, back check height, shank pinning, etc.).  It would make more sense for this condition to affect soft playing.  The effect of the rep lever groove is probably more noticeable during compression, and it makes sense that the hammer line could be compromised, as that's where the spring would have made the deepest impression.  If the WNG shanks are pinned as freely as I think, you're having to lighten up  on the rep springs, which might make them less able to overcome the groove at the height of the rep lever at rest.

First thoughts





------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2018 22:01
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Observing parameters that break all the rules and perform really well, makes me wonder if I know anything at all, about what I think I know.

Specifically. Just finished a 1890's A-1..Came out really nice. Full belly, but for budget reasons only essential parts of the action that have the biggest bang tonally. So, the only action work in the contract was shanks (wng), backchecks (tokiwa), key bushings,and a full regulation and voicing.

The whips were old, but newer than original parts. They were not in the contract, so I didn't touch them. The hammer line was unstable, of course. Checked the spring slot. It and the spring were gunk'd up. Plus, a groove was worn into the rep lever. You could feel the spring grabbing in the worn groove.

For kicks, on one or two, I tried cleaning the gunk, burnishing the groove and added some lube. It had no effect. The spring still grabbed in the slot, and you could feel it. So, sticking to the contract, I accepted the unstable hammer line, and continued, lowering my expectations about what the action regulation would be like when done. Of course, given the whip's spring/rep lever condition, I expected lousy repetition, and was not going to fret about it.

15.5 x 9mm knuckles.  Slightly elevated AR 5.3. relatively light SW. Left the leading alone. leading was more than nothing but not a lot of lead either.

The repetition is bullet proof. This is a happy result, but leaves me feeling completely bornswaggled. Given the amount of time I normally spend messing with rep lever friction, spring tension and smooth spring sliding, struggling to get good, but still real picky repetition, this result, given the completely challenged spring and spring slot, makes me wonder if all the talk about whip springs and re lever friction is barking up the wrong tree. I think this result has something to do with the 15.5 x 9 knuckles, re the angles at which the jack addresses this knuckle geometry...but not sure. I sure would like to know...

The angle at which the jack addresses the knuckle is slightly different than what modern design calls for. Modern parts usually are set up so a line,  perpendicular to the shank through the knuckle core, projected toward the jack center, falls just distal to the jack center. at rest. This action's perpendicular line falls well distal to the jack center. This situation is similar to a Chickering 123 I did a couple of years ago, which also had bullet proof repetition, and the smoothest let off I ever achieved.

Any thoughts on this?


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

David,

This is at least the third  time I've run in to this where all the picky items you are calling out just don't seem to matter. I should add, PP to PPP play at speed and slow, is very nice...very controllable, unto exceptionally controllable. A low tenor Bach left hand pedal tone trill is pleasant and very easy to control. Not very many actions I have played have a prayer, given my technique, of controlling the volume of this kind of trill.

Letoff wide, at .093"(strong 2.3mm). Yet another parameter that is not playing by the books, as this is a wide letoff, according to the fine regulation dogma. I had the letoff closer originally, but widened it on the theory that the old whips needed some room for inconsistent function. Though, to tell the truth, with my setups I have been slowly releasing the dogma regarding fine regulation letoff closeness as well, widening it, as more important items like jack/letoff button synchronicity, and dead nuts aftertouch consistency are providing much more bang for the buck.

Ignored rep pinning...as I mentioned, I was clear with the client, that I would accept what was there, until some later time. Just checked one, 2g at the drop leather...read not tight. Jack friction, on a simple finger friction test is not tight. WNG shanks carefully set and rechecked at 2-4g. Actually, I am thinking of upping the WNG friction to 4g overall, as I think that would be a benefit to the precision of the strike. 

My point: the bandwidth where this repetition , and other regulation behavior functions beautifully, is much wider than usual. The picky gyrations you are mentioning just don't seem to matter on these actions. Relatively Low SW  helps, but even so, for comparison sake(since I don't speak or think Stanwood) the Hammer weights are in the number 6 rate on Stanwood's charts. Very middling, not terribly low SW. 

My gut says this is about the knuckle and the jack's relationship to each other, as defined by the parts and their action center locations. But, I have to figure a way to quantify whether this is true or not. The whips have modern 99mm jack to whip center distance.    ​

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2018 10:54
From: David Skolnik
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Jim -
You didn't specify the rep lever pinning friction.  You didn't mention anything about excess jack friction, so I assume there wasn't any. I think it makes sense that this condition would not (necessarily) affect repetition, if you've done everything else (tail profile and length, back check height, shank pinning, etc.).  It would make more sense for this condition to affect soft playing.  The effect of the rep lever groove is probably more noticeable during compression, and it makes sense that the hammer line could be compromised, as that's where the spring would have made the deepest impression.  If the WNG shanks are pinned as freely as I think, you're having to lighten up  on the rep springs, which might make them less able to overcome the groove at the height of the rep lever at rest.

First thoughts





------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2018 22:01
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Observing parameters that break all the rules and perform really well, makes me wonder if I know anything at all, about what I think I know.

Specifically. Just finished a 1890's A-1..Came out really nice. Full belly, but for budget reasons only essential parts of the action that have the biggest bang tonally. So, the only action work in the contract was shanks (wng), backchecks (tokiwa), key bushings,and a full regulation and voicing.

The whips were old, but newer than original parts. They were not in the contract, so I didn't touch them. The hammer line was unstable, of course. Checked the spring slot. It and the spring were gunk'd up. Plus, a groove was worn into the rep lever. You could feel the spring grabbing in the worn groove.

For kicks, on one or two, I tried cleaning the gunk, burnishing the groove and added some lube. It had no effect. The spring still grabbed in the slot, and you could feel it. So, sticking to the contract, I accepted the unstable hammer line, and continued, lowering my expectations about what the action regulation would be like when done. Of course, given the whip's spring/rep lever condition, I expected lousy repetition, and was not going to fret about it.

15.5 x 9mm knuckles.  Slightly elevated AR 5.3. relatively light SW. Left the leading alone. leading was more than nothing but not a lot of lead either.

The repetition is bullet proof. This is a happy result, but leaves me feeling completely bornswaggled. Given the amount of time I normally spend messing with rep lever friction, spring tension and smooth spring sliding, struggling to get good, but still real picky repetition, this result, given the completely challenged spring and spring slot, makes me wonder if all the talk about whip springs and re lever friction is barking up the wrong tree. I think this result has something to do with the 15.5 x 9 knuckles, re the angles at which the jack addresses this knuckle geometry...but not sure. I sure would like to know...

The angle at which the jack addresses the knuckle is slightly different than what modern design calls for. Modern parts usually are set up so a line,  perpendicular to the shank through the knuckle core, projected toward the jack center, falls just distal to the jack center. at rest. This action's perpendicular line falls well distal to the jack center. This situation is similar to a Chickering 123 I did a couple of years ago, which also had bullet proof repetition, and the smoothest let off I ever achieved.

Any thoughts on this?


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

With the numbers you have given, it looks like you have a low inertia action. Probably a low 200 ITF. Fandrich talks about this stuff in his TTDF articles. 
Here's a neat little list i got from him a while back as an example. With a 5.3 AR and most likely a 8.2 ish SW you'd be down there on the scale.
-chris
#caveman​

------------------------------
A hunter's drumbeat steers the stampeding herd,
His belly growls in hunger to what he sees.
The mammoth aware blows his mighty trumpet,
But alas, the caveman tickles the ivories.

chernobieffpiano.com
865-986-7720
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2018 12:08
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

David,

This is at least the third  time I've run in to this where all the picky items you are calling out just don't seem to matter. I should add, PP to PPP play at speed and slow, is very nice...very controllable, unto exceptionally controllable. A low tenor Bach left hand pedal tone trill is pleasant and very easy to control. Not very many actions I have played have a prayer, given my technique, of controlling the volume of this kind of trill.

Letoff wide, at .093"(strong 2.3mm). Yet another parameter that is not playing by the books, as this is a wide letoff, according to the fine regulation dogma. I had the letoff closer originally, but widened it on the theory that the old whips needed some room for inconsistent function. Though, to tell the truth, with my setups I have been slowly releasing the dogma regarding fine regulation letoff closeness as well, widening it, as more important items like jack/letoff button synchronicity, and dead nuts aftertouch consistency are providing much more bang for the buck.

Ignored rep pinning...as I mentioned, I was clear with the client, that I would accept what was there, until some later time. Just checked one, 2g at the drop leather...read not tight. Jack friction, on a simple finger friction test is not tight. WNG shanks carefully set and rechecked at 2-4g. Actually, I am thinking of upping the WNG friction to 4g overall, as I think that would be a benefit to the precision of the strike.

My point: the bandwidth where this repetition , and other regulation behavior functions beautifully, is much wider than usual. The picky gyrations you are mentioning just don't seem to matter on these actions. Relatively Low SW  helps, but even so, for comparison sake(since I don't speak or think Stanwood) the Hammer weights are in the number 6 rate on Stanwood's charts. Very middling, not terribly low SW.

My gut says this is about the knuckle and the jack's relationship to each other, as defined by the parts and their action center locations. But, I have to figure a way to quantify whether this is true or not. The whips have modern 99mm jack to whip center distance.    ​

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2018 10:54
From: David Skolnik
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Jim -
You didn't specify the rep lever pinning friction.  You didn't mention anything about excess jack friction, so I assume there wasn't any. I think it makes sense that this condition would not (necessarily) affect repetition, if you've done everything else (tail profile and length, back check height, shank pinning, etc.).  It would make more sense for this condition to affect soft playing.  The effect of the rep lever groove is probably more noticeable during compression, and it makes sense that the hammer line could be compromised, as that's where the spring would have made the deepest impression.  If the WNG shanks are pinned as freely as I think, you're having to lighten up  on the rep springs, which might make them less able to overcome the groove at the height of the rep lever at rest.

First thoughts





------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2018 22:01
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Observing parameters that break all the rules and perform really well, makes me wonder if I know anything at all, about what I think I know.

Specifically. Just finished a 1890's A-1..Came out really nice. Full belly, but for budget reasons only essential parts of the action that have the biggest bang tonally. So, the only action work in the contract was shanks (wng), backchecks (tokiwa), key bushings,and a full regulation and voicing.

The whips were old, but newer than original parts. They were not in the contract, so I didn't touch them. The hammer line was unstable, of course. Checked the spring slot. It and the spring were gunk'd up. Plus, a groove was worn into the rep lever. You could feel the spring grabbing in the worn groove.

For kicks, on one or two, I tried cleaning the gunk, burnishing the groove and added some lube. It had no effect. The spring still grabbed in the slot, and you could feel it. So, sticking to the contract, I accepted the unstable hammer line, and continued, lowering my expectations about what the action regulation would be like when done. Of course, given the whip's spring/rep lever condition, I expected lousy repetition, and was not going to fret about it.

15.5 x 9mm knuckles.  Slightly elevated AR 5.3. relatively light SW. Left the leading alone. leading was more than nothing but not a lot of lead either.

The repetition is bullet proof. This is a happy result, but leaves me feeling completely bornswaggled. Given the amount of time I normally spend messing with rep lever friction, spring tension and smooth spring sliding, struggling to get good, but still real picky repetition, this result, given the completely challenged spring and spring slot, makes me wonder if all the talk about whip springs and re lever friction is barking up the wrong tree. I think this result has something to do with the 15.5 x 9 knuckles, re the angles at which the jack addresses this knuckle geometry...but not sure. I sure would like to know...

The angle at which the jack addresses the knuckle is slightly different than what modern design calls for. Modern parts usually are set up so a line,  perpendicular to the shank through the knuckle core, projected toward the jack center, falls just distal to the jack center. at rest. This action's perpendicular line falls well distal to the jack center. This situation is similar to a Chickering 123 I did a couple of years ago, which also had bullet proof repetition, and the smoothest let off I ever achieved.

Any thoughts on this?


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

<Low inertia action

Low inertia action...yes. This would be correct, and perhaps this would be the answer to my question.  To be clear though, low inertia does not mean no resistance or flyaway. Departing from  ITF's suggested DW and UW targets, in general, resistance is provided by elevated DW and rather high UW's.  This goes back to Keith's observation regarding the dogmas we "know" to be true, not being a unified description of action behavior.

The question then becomes, what is it physically and geometrically that allows repetition (and other parameters), in a low inertia action, to function well, over a larger bandwidth?  Reduced lead and the resulting elevated DW's,  speed up the velocity of the key's depression and return. This might be one factor. Another might be inertia of the key more closely matching the inertia of the shank/hammer, allowing them to phase more closely together. 

I'll dig out the Rhodes/Fandrich article to see if they discuss phasing of the different parts of the system. 


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-18-2018 20:55
From: Chris Chernobieff
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

With the numbers you have given, it looks like you have a low inertia action. Probably a low 200 ITF. Fandrich talks about this stuff in his TTDF articles.
Here's a neat little list i got from him a while back as an example. With a 5.3 AR and most likely a 8.2 ish SW you'd be down there on the scale.
-chris
#caveman​

------------------------------
A hunter's drumbeat steers the stampeding herd,
His belly growls in hunger to what he sees.
The mammoth aware blows his mighty trumpet,
But alas, the caveman tickles the ivories.

chernobieffpiano.com
865-986-7720

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2018 12:08
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

David,

This is at least the third  time I've run in to this where all the picky items you are calling out just don't seem to matter. I should add, PP to PPP play at speed and slow, is very nice...very controllable, unto exceptionally controllable. A low tenor Bach left hand pedal tone trill is pleasant and very easy to control. Not very many actions I have played have a prayer, given my technique, of controlling the volume of this kind of trill.

Letoff wide, at .093"(strong 2.3mm). Yet another parameter that is not playing by the books, as this is a wide letoff, according to the fine regulation dogma. I had the letoff closer originally, but widened it on the theory that the old whips needed some room for inconsistent function. Though, to tell the truth, with my setups I have been slowly releasing the dogma regarding fine regulation letoff closeness as well, widening it, as more important items like jack/letoff button synchronicity, and dead nuts aftertouch consistency are providing much more bang for the buck.

Ignored rep pinning...as I mentioned, I was clear with the client, that I would accept what was there, until some later time. Just checked one, 2g at the drop leather...read not tight. Jack friction, on a simple finger friction test is not tight. WNG shanks carefully set and rechecked at 2-4g. Actually, I am thinking of upping the WNG friction to 4g overall, as I think that would be a benefit to the precision of the strike.

My point: the bandwidth where this repetition , and other regulation behavior functions beautifully, is much wider than usual. The picky gyrations you are mentioning just don't seem to matter on these actions. Relatively Low SW  helps, but even so, for comparison sake(since I don't speak or think Stanwood) the Hammer weights are in the number 6 rate on Stanwood's charts. Very middling, not terribly low SW.

My gut says this is about the knuckle and the jack's relationship to each other, as defined by the parts and their action center locations. But, I have to figure a way to quantify whether this is true or not. The whips have modern 99mm jack to whip center distance.    ​

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2018 10:54
From: David Skolnik
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Jim -
You didn't specify the rep lever pinning friction.  You didn't mention anything about excess jack friction, so I assume there wasn't any. I think it makes sense that this condition would not (necessarily) affect repetition, if you've done everything else (tail profile and length, back check height, shank pinning, etc.).  It would make more sense for this condition to affect soft playing.  The effect of the rep lever groove is probably more noticeable during compression, and it makes sense that the hammer line could be compromised, as that's where the spring would have made the deepest impression.  If the WNG shanks are pinned as freely as I think, you're having to lighten up  on the rep springs, which might make them less able to overcome the groove at the height of the rep lever at rest.

First thoughts





------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2018 22:01
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Observing parameters that break all the rules and perform really well, makes me wonder if I know anything at all, about what I think I know.

Specifically. Just finished a 1890's A-1..Came out really nice. Full belly, but for budget reasons only essential parts of the action that have the biggest bang tonally. So, the only action work in the contract was shanks (wng), backchecks (tokiwa), key bushings,and a full regulation and voicing.

The whips were old, but newer than original parts. They were not in the contract, so I didn't touch them. The hammer line was unstable, of course. Checked the spring slot. It and the spring were gunk'd up. Plus, a groove was worn into the rep lever. You could feel the spring grabbing in the worn groove.

For kicks, on one or two, I tried cleaning the gunk, burnishing the groove and added some lube. It had no effect. The spring still grabbed in the slot, and you could feel it. So, sticking to the contract, I accepted the unstable hammer line, and continued, lowering my expectations about what the action regulation would be like when done. Of course, given the whip's spring/rep lever condition, I expected lousy repetition, and was not going to fret about it.

15.5 x 9mm knuckles.  Slightly elevated AR 5.3. relatively light SW. Left the leading alone. leading was more than nothing but not a lot of lead either.

The repetition is bullet proof. This is a happy result, but leaves me feeling completely bornswaggled. Given the amount of time I normally spend messing with rep lever friction, spring tension and smooth spring sliding, struggling to get good, but still real picky repetition, this result, given the completely challenged spring and spring slot, makes me wonder if all the talk about whip springs and re lever friction is barking up the wrong tree. I think this result has something to do with the 15.5 x 9 knuckles, re the angles at which the jack addresses this knuckle geometry...but not sure. I sure would like to know...

The angle at which the jack addresses the knuckle is slightly different than what modern design calls for. Modern parts usually are set up so a line,  perpendicular to the shank through the knuckle core, projected toward the jack center, falls just distal to the jack center. at rest. This action's perpendicular line falls well distal to the jack center. This situation is similar to a Chickering 123 I did a couple of years ago, which also had bullet proof repetition, and the smoothest let off I ever achieved.

Any thoughts on this?


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

Please post article location.

------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-18-2018 21:33
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

<Low inertia action

Low inertia action...yes. This would be correct, and perhaps this would be the answer to my question.  To be clear though, low inertia does not mean no resistance or flyaway. Departing from  ITF's suggested DW and UW targets, in general, resistance is provided by elevated DW and rather high UW's.  This goes back to Keith's observation regarding the dogmas we "know" to be true, not being a unified description of action behavior.

The question then becomes, what is it physically and geometrically that allows repetition (and other parameters), in a low inertia action, to function well, over a larger bandwidth?  Reduced lead and the resulting elevated DW's,  speed up the velocity of the key's depression and return. This might be one factor. Another might be inertia of the key more closely matching the inertia of the shank/hammer, allowing them to phase more closely together.

I'll dig out the Rhodes/Fandrich article to see if they discuss phasing of the different parts of the system.


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026

Original Message:
Sent: 05-18-2018 20:55
From: Chris Chernobieff
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

With the numbers you have given, it looks like you have a low inertia action. Probably a low 200 ITF. Fandrich talks about this stuff in his TTDF articles.
Here's a neat little list i got from him a while back as an example. With a 5.3 AR and most likely a 8.2 ish SW you'd be down there on the scale.
-chris
#caveman​

------------------------------
A hunter's drumbeat steers the stampeding herd,
His belly growls in hunger to what he sees.
The mammoth aware blows his mighty trumpet,
But alas, the caveman tickles the ivories.

chernobieffpiano.com
865-986-7720

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2018 12:08
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

David,

This is at least the third  time I've run in to this where all the picky items you are calling out just don't seem to matter. I should add, PP to PPP play at speed and slow, is very nice...very controllable, unto exceptionally controllable. A low tenor Bach left hand pedal tone trill is pleasant and very easy to control. Not very many actions I have played have a prayer, given my technique, of controlling the volume of this kind of trill.

Letoff wide, at .093"(strong 2.3mm). Yet another parameter that is not playing by the books, as this is a wide letoff, according to the fine regulation dogma. I had the letoff closer originally, but widened it on the theory that the old whips needed some room for inconsistent function. Though, to tell the truth, with my setups I have been slowly releasing the dogma regarding fine regulation letoff closeness as well, widening it, as more important items like jack/letoff button synchronicity, and dead nuts aftertouch consistency are providing much more bang for the buck.

Ignored rep pinning...as I mentioned, I was clear with the client, that I would accept what was there, until some later time. Just checked one, 2g at the drop leather...read not tight. Jack friction, on a simple finger friction test is not tight. WNG shanks carefully set and rechecked at 2-4g. Actually, I am thinking of upping the WNG friction to 4g overall, as I think that would be a benefit to the precision of the strike.

My point: the bandwidth where this repetition , and other regulation behavior functions beautifully, is much wider than usual. The picky gyrations you are mentioning just don't seem to matter on these actions. Relatively Low SW  helps, but even so, for comparison sake(since I don't speak or think Stanwood) the Hammer weights are in the number 6 rate on Stanwood's charts. Very middling, not terribly low SW.

My gut says this is about the knuckle and the jack's relationship to each other, as defined by the parts and their action center locations. But, I have to figure a way to quantify whether this is true or not. The whips have modern 99mm jack to whip center distance.    ​

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2018 10:54
From: David Skolnik
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Jim -
You didn't specify the rep lever pinning friction.  You didn't mention anything about excess jack friction, so I assume there wasn't any. I think it makes sense that this condition would not (necessarily) affect repetition, if you've done everything else (tail profile and length, back check height, shank pinning, etc.).  It would make more sense for this condition to affect soft playing.  The effect of the rep lever groove is probably more noticeable during compression, and it makes sense that the hammer line could be compromised, as that's where the spring would have made the deepest impression.  If the WNG shanks are pinned as freely as I think, you're having to lighten up  on the rep springs, which might make them less able to overcome the groove at the height of the rep lever at rest.

First thoughts





------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2018 22:01
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Observing parameters that break all the rules and perform really well, makes me wonder if I know anything at all, about what I think I know.

Specifically. Just finished a 1890's A-1..Came out really nice. Full belly, but for budget reasons only essential parts of the action that have the biggest bang tonally. So, the only action work in the contract was shanks (wng), backchecks (tokiwa), key bushings,and a full regulation and voicing.

The whips were old, but newer than original parts. They were not in the contract, so I didn't touch them. The hammer line was unstable, of course. Checked the spring slot. It and the spring were gunk'd up. Plus, a groove was worn into the rep lever. You could feel the spring grabbing in the worn groove.

For kicks, on one or two, I tried cleaning the gunk, burnishing the groove and added some lube. It had no effect. The spring still grabbed in the slot, and you could feel it. So, sticking to the contract, I accepted the unstable hammer line, and continued, lowering my expectations about what the action regulation would be like when done. Of course, given the whip's spring/rep lever condition, I expected lousy repetition, and was not going to fret about it.

15.5 x 9mm knuckles.  Slightly elevated AR 5.3. relatively light SW. Left the leading alone. leading was more than nothing but not a lot of lead either.

The repetition is bullet proof. This is a happy result, but leaves me feeling completely bornswaggled. Given the amount of time I normally spend messing with rep lever friction, spring tension and smooth spring sliding, struggling to get good, but still real picky repetition, this result, given the completely challenged spring and spring slot, makes me wonder if all the talk about whip springs and re lever friction is barking up the wrong tree. I think this result has something to do with the 15.5 x 9 knuckles, re the angles at which the jack addresses this knuckle geometry...but not sure. I sure would like to know...

The angle at which the jack addresses the knuckle is slightly different than what modern design calls for. Modern parts usually are set up so a line,  perpendicular to the shank through the knuckle core, projected toward the jack center, falls just distal to the jack center. at rest. This action's perpendicular line falls well distal to the jack center. This situation is similar to a Chickering 123 I did a couple of years ago, which also had bullet proof repetition, and the smoothest let off I ever achieved.

Any thoughts on this?


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

"Dead nuts aftertouch consistency"? Does that mean very very consistent aftertouch, Jim?

Bob Anderson
Tucson, AZ


Original Message------

David,

This is at least the third  time I've run in to this where all the picky items you are calling out just don't seem to matter. I should add, PP to PPP play at speed and slow, is very nice...very controllable, unto exceptionally controllable. A low tenor Bach left hand pedal tone trill is pleasant and very easy to control. Not very many actions I have played have a prayer, given my technique, of controlling the volume of this kind of trill.

Letoff wide, at .093"(strong 2.3mm). Yet another parameter that is not playing by the books, as this is a wide letoff, according to the fine regulation dogma. I had the letoff closer originally, but widened it on the theory that the old whips needed some room for inconsistent function. Though, to tell the truth, with my setups I have been slowly releasing the dogma regarding fine regulation letoff closeness as well, widening it, as more important items like jack/letoff button synchronicity, and dead nuts aftertouch consistency are providing much more bang for the buck.

Ignored rep pinning...as I mentioned, I was clear with the client, that I would accept what was there, until some later time. Just checked one, 2g at the drop leather...read not tight. Jack friction, on a simple finger friction test is not tight. WNG shanks carefully set and rechecked at 2-4g. Actually, I am thinking of upping the WNG friction to 4g overall, as I think that would be a benefit to the precision of the strike. 

My point: the bandwidth where this repetition , and other regulation behavior functions beautifully, is much wider than usual. The picky gyrations you are mentioning just don't seem to matter on these actions. Relatively Low SW  helps, but even so, for comparison sake(since I don't speak or think Stanwood) the Hammer weights are in the number 6 rate on Stanwood's charts. Very middling, not terribly low SW. 

My gut says this is about the knuckle and the jack's relationship to each other, as defined by the parts and their action center locations. But, I have to figure a way to quantify whether this is true or not. The whips have modern 99mm jack to whip center distance.    ​

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2018 10:54
From: David Skolnik
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Jim -
You didn't specify the rep lever pinning friction.  You didn't mention anything about excess jack friction, so I assume there wasn't any. I think it makes sense that this condition would not (necessarily) affect repetition, if you've done everything else (tail profile and length, back check height, shank pinning, etc.).  It would make more sense for this condition to affect soft playing.  The effect of the rep lever groove is probably more noticeable during compression, and it makes sense that the hammer line could be compromised, as that's where the spring would have made the deepest impression.  If the WNG shanks are pinned as freely as I think, you're having to lighten up  on the rep springs, which might make them less able to overcome the groove at the height of the rep lever at rest.

First thoughts





------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2018 22:01
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Observing parameters that break all the rules and perform really well, makes me wonder if I know anything at all, about what I think I know.

Specifically. Just finished a 1890's A-1..Came out really nice. Full belly, but for budget reasons only essential parts of the action that have the biggest bang tonally. So, the only action work in the contract was shanks (wng), backchecks (tokiwa), key bushings,and a full regulation and voicing.

The whips were old, but newer than original parts. They were not in the contract, so I didn't touch them. The hammer line was unstable, of course. Checked the spring slot. It and the spring were gunk'd up. Plus, a groove was worn into the rep lever. You could feel the spring grabbing in the worn groove.

For kicks, on one or two, I tried cleaning the gunk, burnishing the groove and added some lube. It had no effect. The spring still grabbed in the slot, and you could feel it. So, sticking to the contract, I accepted the unstable hammer line, and continued, lowering my expectations about what the action regulation would be like when done. Of course, given the whip's spring/rep lever condition, I expected lousy repetition, and was not going to fret about it.

15.5 x 9mm knuckles.  Slightly elevated AR 5.3. relatively light SW. Left the leading alone. leading was more than nothing but not a lot of lead either.

The repetition is bullet proof. This is a happy result, but leaves me feeling completely bornswaggled. Given the amount of time I normally spend messing with rep lever friction, spring tension and smooth spring sliding, struggling to get good, but still real picky repetition, this result, given the completely challenged spring and spring slot, makes me wonder if all the talk about whip springs and re lever friction is barking up the wrong tree. I think this result has something to do with the 15.5 x 9 knuckles, re the angles at which the jack addresses this knuckle geometry...but not sure. I sure would like to know...

The angle at which the jack addresses the knuckle is slightly different than what modern design calls for. Modern parts usually are set up so a line,  perpendicular to the shank through the knuckle core, projected toward the jack center, falls just distal to the jack center. at rest. This action's perpendicular line falls well distal to the jack center. This situation is similar to a Chickering 123 I did a couple of years ago, which also had bullet proof repetition, and the smoothest let off I ever achieved.

Any thoughts on this?


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

ITF articles April-September 2013  Darrell Fandrich & John Rhodes.

"dead nuts" aftertouch,  to me, means very accurate. Measured with a 1" or so .040 or .050 plastic machinist shim, wrapped in blue masking tape so the shim sits on the punching and conforms to the angles defined by the key. A stiff shim of the same dimension will give bogus readings, because the stiffness of the shim creates an unknown dimension depending on how it is held...particularly on the sharps. ​

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-18-2018 23:45
From: Robert Anderson
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

"Dead nuts aftertouch consistency"? Does that mean very very consistent aftertouch, Jim?

Bob Anderson
Tucson, AZ


Original Message------

David,

This is at least the third  time I've run in to this where all the picky items you are calling out just don't seem to matter. I should add, PP to PPP play at speed and slow, is very nice...very controllable, unto exceptionally controllable. A low tenor Bach left hand pedal tone trill is pleasant and very easy to control. Not very many actions I have played have a prayer, given my technique, of controlling the volume of this kind of trill.

Letoff wide, at .093"(strong 2.3mm). Yet another parameter that is not playing by the books, as this is a wide letoff, according to the fine regulation dogma. I had the letoff closer originally, but widened it on the theory that the old whips needed some room for inconsistent function. Though, to tell the truth, with my setups I have been slowly releasing the dogma regarding fine regulation letoff closeness as well, widening it, as more important items like jack/letoff button synchronicity, and dead nuts aftertouch consistency are providing much more bang for the buck.

Ignored rep pinning...as I mentioned, I was clear with the client, that I would accept what was there, until some later time. Just checked one, 2g at the drop leather...read not tight. Jack friction, on a simple finger friction test is not tight. WNG shanks carefully set and rechecked at 2-4g. Actually, I am thinking of upping the WNG friction to 4g overall, as I think that would be a benefit to the precision of the strike.

My point: the bandwidth where this repetition , and other regulation behavior functions beautifully, is much wider than usual. The picky gyrations you are mentioning just don't seem to matter on these actions. Relatively Low SW  helps, but even so, for comparison sake(since I don't speak or think Stanwood) the Hammer weights are in the number 6 rate on Stanwood's charts. Very middling, not terribly low SW.

My gut says this is about the knuckle and the jack's relationship to each other, as defined by the parts and their action center locations. But, I have to figure a way to quantify whether this is true or not. The whips have modern 99mm jack to whip center distance.    ​

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2018 10:54
From: David Skolnik
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Jim -
You didn't specify the rep lever pinning friction.  You didn't mention anything about excess jack friction, so I assume there wasn't any. I think it makes sense that this condition would not (necessarily) affect repetition, if you've done everything else (tail profile and length, back check height, shank pinning, etc.).  It would make more sense for this condition to affect soft playing.  The effect of the rep lever groove is probably more noticeable during compression, and it makes sense that the hammer line could be compromised, as that's where the spring would have made the deepest impression.  If the WNG shanks are pinned as freely as I think, you're having to lighten up  on the rep springs, which might make them less able to overcome the groove at the height of the rep lever at rest.

First thoughts





------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2018 22:01
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Observing parameters that break all the rules and perform really well, makes me wonder if I know anything at all, about what I think I know.

Specifically. Just finished a 1890's A-1..Came out really nice. Full belly, but for budget reasons only essential parts of the action that have the biggest bang tonally. So, the only action work in the contract was shanks (wng), backchecks (tokiwa), key bushings,and a full regulation and voicing.

The whips were old, but newer than original parts. They were not in the contract, so I didn't touch them. The hammer line was unstable, of course. Checked the spring slot. It and the spring were gunk'd up. Plus, a groove was worn into the rep lever. You could feel the spring grabbing in the worn groove.

For kicks, on one or two, I tried cleaning the gunk, burnishing the groove and added some lube. It had no effect. The spring still grabbed in the slot, and you could feel it. So, sticking to the contract, I accepted the unstable hammer line, and continued, lowering my expectations about what the action regulation would be like when done. Of course, given the whip's spring/rep lever condition, I expected lousy repetition, and was not going to fret about it.

15.5 x 9mm knuckles.  Slightly elevated AR 5.3. relatively light SW. Left the leading alone. leading was more than nothing but not a lot of lead either.

The repetition is bullet proof. This is a happy result, but leaves me feeling completely bornswaggled. Given the amount of time I normally spend messing with rep lever friction, spring tension and smooth spring sliding, struggling to get good, but still real picky repetition, this result, given the completely challenged spring and spring slot, makes me wonder if all the talk about whip springs and re lever friction is barking up the wrong tree. I think this result has something to do with the 15.5 x 9 knuckles, re the angles at which the jack addresses this knuckle geometry...but not sure. I sure would like to know...

The angle at which the jack addresses the knuckle is slightly different than what modern design calls for. Modern parts usually are set up so a line,  perpendicular to the shank through the knuckle core, projected toward the jack center, falls just distal to the jack center. at rest. This action's perpendicular line falls well distal to the jack center. This situation is similar to a Chickering 123 I did a couple of years ago, which also had bullet proof repetition, and the smoothest let off I ever achieved.

Any thoughts on this?


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

Re the repetition question: I'm going to start with a "Phasing Hypothesis", and try and suss out whether this might be the parameter I'm looking for. As a hypothesis, this makes sense, because of another serendipitous result I had with, this time with a Langer action, Bechstein.

This was another bulletproof repetition action, even with no whip work on 30-ish yr old parts. WNG shanks 17x9 knuckles. These Langer actions force the whip and key to phase, because the capstan/heel resting contact is replaced by connected pivot. The key and whip must move as one, because they are connected.  

I have to figure out how one would quantify the ability of independent , non-pivot connected parts to phase well...not sure how.

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-19-2018 09:22
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

ITF articles April-September 2013  Darrell Fandrich & John Rhodes.

"dead nuts" aftertouch,  to me, means very accurate. Measured with a 1" or so .040 or .050 plastic machinist shim, wrapped in blue masking tape so the shim sits on the punching and conforms to the angles defined by the key. A stiff shim of the same dimension will give bogus readings, because the stiffness of the shim creates an unknown dimension depending on how it is held...particularly on the sharps. ​

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026

Original Message:
Sent: 05-18-2018 23:45
From: Robert Anderson
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

"Dead nuts aftertouch consistency"? Does that mean very very consistent aftertouch, Jim?

Bob Anderson
Tucson, AZ


Original Message------

David,

This is at least the third  time I've run in to this where all the picky items you are calling out just don't seem to matter. I should add, PP to PPP play at speed and slow, is very nice...very controllable, unto exceptionally controllable. A low tenor Bach left hand pedal tone trill is pleasant and very easy to control. Not very many actions I have played have a prayer, given my technique, of controlling the volume of this kind of trill.

Letoff wide, at .093"(strong 2.3mm). Yet another parameter that is not playing by the books, as this is a wide letoff, according to the fine regulation dogma. I had the letoff closer originally, but widened it on the theory that the old whips needed some room for inconsistent function. Though, to tell the truth, with my setups I have been slowly releasing the dogma regarding fine regulation letoff closeness as well, widening it, as more important items like jack/letoff button synchronicity, and dead nuts aftertouch consistency are providing much more bang for the buck.

Ignored rep pinning...as I mentioned, I was clear with the client, that I would accept what was there, until some later time. Just checked one, 2g at the drop leather...read not tight. Jack friction, on a simple finger friction test is not tight. WNG shanks carefully set and rechecked at 2-4g. Actually, I am thinking of upping the WNG friction to 4g overall, as I think that would be a benefit to the precision of the strike.

My point: the bandwidth where this repetition , and other regulation behavior functions beautifully, is much wider than usual. The picky gyrations you are mentioning just don't seem to matter on these actions. Relatively Low SW  helps, but even so, for comparison sake(since I don't speak or think Stanwood) the Hammer weights are in the number 6 rate on Stanwood's charts. Very middling, not terribly low SW.

My gut says this is about the knuckle and the jack's relationship to each other, as defined by the parts and their action center locations. But, I have to figure a way to quantify whether this is true or not. The whips have modern 99mm jack to whip center distance.    ​

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026

Original Message:
Sent: 05-17-2018 10:54
From: David Skolnik
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Jim -
You didn't specify the rep lever pinning friction.  You didn't mention anything about excess jack friction, so I assume there wasn't any. I think it makes sense that this condition would not (necessarily) affect repetition, if you've done everything else (tail profile and length, back check height, shank pinning, etc.).  It would make more sense for this condition to affect soft playing.  The effect of the rep lever groove is probably more noticeable during compression, and it makes sense that the hammer line could be compromised, as that's where the spring would have made the deepest impression.  If the WNG shanks are pinned as freely as I think, you're having to lighten up  on the rep springs, which might make them less able to overcome the groove at the height of the rep lever at rest.

First thoughts





------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2018 22:01
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Observing parameters that break all the rules and perform really well, makes me wonder if I know anything at all, about what I think I know.

Specifically. Just finished a 1890's A-1..Came out really nice. Full belly, but for budget reasons only essential parts of the action that have the biggest bang tonally. So, the only action work in the contract was shanks (wng), backchecks (tokiwa), key bushings,and a full regulation and voicing.

The whips were old, but newer than original parts. They were not in the contract, so I didn't touch them. The hammer line was unstable, of course. Checked the spring slot. It and the spring were gunk'd up. Plus, a groove was worn into the rep lever. You could feel the spring grabbing in the worn groove.

For kicks, on one or two, I tried cleaning the gunk, burnishing the groove and added some lube. It had no effect. The spring still grabbed in the slot, and you could feel it. So, sticking to the contract, I accepted the unstable hammer line, and continued, lowering my expectations about what the action regulation would be like when done. Of course, given the whip's spring/rep lever condition, I expected lousy repetition, and was not going to fret about it.

15.5 x 9mm knuckles.  Slightly elevated AR 5.3. relatively light SW. Left the leading alone. leading was more than nothing but not a lot of lead either.

The repetition is bullet proof. This is a happy result, but leaves me feeling completely bornswaggled. Given the amount of time I normally spend messing with rep lever friction, spring tension and smooth spring sliding, struggling to get good, but still real picky repetition, this result, given the completely challenged spring and spring slot, makes me wonder if all the talk about whip springs and re lever friction is barking up the wrong tree. I think this result has something to do with the 15.5 x 9 knuckles, re the angles at which the jack addresses this knuckle geometry...but not sure. I sure would like to know...

The angle at which the jack addresses the knuckle is slightly different than what modern design calls for. Modern parts usually are set up so a line,  perpendicular to the shank through the knuckle core, projected toward the jack center, falls just distal to the jack center. at rest. This action's perpendicular line falls well distal to the jack center. This situation is similar to a Chickering 123 I did a couple of years ago, which also had bullet proof repetition, and the smoothest let off I ever achieved.

Any thoughts on this?


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

Mr Ialeggio,
With respect; It seems that you're overthinking this. With a 15.5mm knuckle distance the top of the fly is traveling on a shorter arc. Hence faster, easier re-set. Maybe not. I tune pianos for a living. Mechanical relationships confuse me.

------------------------------
Karl Roeder
Pompano Beach FL
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2018 22:01
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Observing parameters that break all the rules and perform really well, makes me wonder if I know anything at all, about what I think I know.

Specifically. Just finished a 1890's A-1..Came out really nice. Full belly, but for budget reasons only essential parts of the action that have the biggest bang tonally. So, the only action work in the contract was shanks (wng), backchecks (tokiwa), key bushings,and a full regulation and voicing.

The whips were old, but newer than original parts. They were not in the contract, so I didn't touch them. The hammer line was unstable, of course. Checked the spring slot. It and the spring were gunk'd up. Plus, a groove was worn into the rep lever. You could feel the spring grabbing in the worn groove.

For kicks, on one or two, I tried cleaning the gunk, burnishing the groove and added some lube. It had no effect. The spring still grabbed in the slot, and you could feel it. So, sticking to the contract, I accepted the unstable hammer line, and continued, lowering my expectations about what the action regulation would be like when done. Of course, given the whip's spring/rep lever condition, I expected lousy repetition, and was not going to fret about it.

15.5 x 9mm knuckles.  Slightly elevated AR 5.3. relatively light SW. Left the leading alone. leading was more than nothing but not a lot of lead either.

The repetition is bullet proof. This is a happy result, but leaves me feeling completely bornswaggled. Given the amount of time I normally spend messing with rep lever friction, spring tension and smooth spring sliding, struggling to get good, but still real picky repetition, this result, given the completely challenged spring and spring slot, makes me wonder if all the talk about whip springs and re lever friction is barking up the wrong tree. I think this result has something to do with the 15.5 x 9 knuckles, re the angles at which the jack addresses this knuckle geometry...but not sure. I sure would like to know...

The angle at which the jack addresses the knuckle is slightly different than what modern design calls for. Modern parts usually are set up so a line,  perpendicular to the shank through the knuckle core, projected toward the jack center, falls just distal to the jack center. at rest. This action's perpendicular line falls well distal to the jack center. This situation is similar to a Chickering 123 I did a couple of years ago, which also had bullet proof repetition, and the smoothest let off I ever achieved.

Any thoughts on this?


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

yes, that makes sense, Karl.

But the same result was had with 17 mm knuckles on the other two stellar repetition actions, the Bechstein and the Chick 123. All 3 actions were 9mm, as 9mm is my default knuckle. On the other hand, I have had actions with 17 x 9  knuckle setups which had the more standard picky-beyond-belief and ultimately so-so to lousy repetition, despite heroic messing with whip conditions (new and old whips). So, although this parameter makes sense and is probably part of it, I'm not convinced there is something else obvious and major at play.

Incidentally, on the 3 stellar repetition actions, re the wide bandwidth of excellent functionality, I purposely set the jack forward and aft of the usual placement, de-tuned the carefully set rep-lever height, and messed with spring tensions, without destroying the excellent repetition. Like I said, on these actions repetition functioned becasue some parameter was assisting it. 

Also, as a collateral attribute, or perhaps primary attribute in the 15.5 x 9 setup, hammer weights had, by definition, to be defining the system in the low inertia bandwidth

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-19-2018 09:41
From: Karl Roeder
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Mr Ialeggio,
With respect; It seems that you're overthinking this. With a 15.5mm knuckle distance the top of the fly is traveling on a shorter arc. Hence faster, easier re-set. Maybe not. I tune pianos for a living. Mechanical relationships confuse me.

------------------------------
Karl Roeder
Pompano Beach FL

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2018 22:01
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Observing parameters that break all the rules and perform really well, makes me wonder if I know anything at all, about what I think I know.

Specifically. Just finished a 1890's A-1..Came out really nice. Full belly, but for budget reasons only essential parts of the action that have the biggest bang tonally. So, the only action work in the contract was shanks (wng), backchecks (tokiwa), key bushings,and a full regulation and voicing.

The whips were old, but newer than original parts. They were not in the contract, so I didn't touch them. The hammer line was unstable, of course. Checked the spring slot. It and the spring were gunk'd up. Plus, a groove was worn into the rep lever. You could feel the spring grabbing in the worn groove.

For kicks, on one or two, I tried cleaning the gunk, burnishing the groove and added some lube. It had no effect. The spring still grabbed in the slot, and you could feel it. So, sticking to the contract, I accepted the unstable hammer line, and continued, lowering my expectations about what the action regulation would be like when done. Of course, given the whip's spring/rep lever condition, I expected lousy repetition, and was not going to fret about it.

15.5 x 9mm knuckles.  Slightly elevated AR 5.3. relatively light SW. Left the leading alone. leading was more than nothing but not a lot of lead either.

The repetition is bullet proof. This is a happy result, but leaves me feeling completely bornswaggled. Given the amount of time I normally spend messing with rep lever friction, spring tension and smooth spring sliding, struggling to get good, but still real picky repetition, this result, given the completely challenged spring and spring slot, makes me wonder if all the talk about whip springs and re lever friction is barking up the wrong tree. I think this result has something to do with the 15.5 x 9 knuckles, re the angles at which the jack addresses this knuckle geometry...but not sure. I sure would like to know...

The angle at which the jack addresses the knuckle is slightly different than what modern design calls for. Modern parts usually are set up so a line,  perpendicular to the shank through the knuckle core, projected toward the jack center, falls just distal to the jack center. at rest. This action's perpendicular line falls well distal to the jack center. This situation is similar to a Chickering 123 I did a couple of years ago, which also had bullet proof repetition, and the smoothest let off I ever achieved.

Any thoughts on this?


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

Jim -
Not yet accessed articles - later, so these might be thoroughly moot, but two things still:
- no mention of checking (i think).  Does checking factor into repetition and, in any case, what is your 'go-to' checking distance?
- you describe positive results in both repetition AND smoothness in let-off.  Are we assuming any correlation?  

Have you tried quantifying the repetition speed at soft and loud dynamics?  Just tried it with a metronome (and my limited technique). On the particular piano at hand (fingers), 8 repetitions per second was OK,, but by 9 it (or I) was jamming (and not in the good way).  If you can figure the math, you can use the 8 reps per beat and gradually step up the metronome speed. 

Is this stupid or what?

------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-19-2018 10:31
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

yes, that makes sense, Karl.

But the same result was had with 17 mm knuckles on the other two stellar repetition actions, the Bechstein and the Chick 123. All 3 actions were 9mm, as 9mm is my default knuckle. On the other hand, I have had actions with 17 x 9  knuckle setups which had the more standard picky-beyond-belief and ultimately so-so to lousy repetition, despite heroic messing with whip conditions (new and old whips). So, although this parameter makes sense and is probably part of it, I'm not convinced there is something else obvious and major at play.

Incidentally, on the 3 stellar repetition actions, re the wide bandwidth of excellent functionality, I purposely set the jack forward and aft of the usual placement, de-tuned the carefully set rep-lever height, and messed with spring tensions, without destroying the excellent repetition. Like I said, on these actions repetition functioned becasue some parameter was assisting it.

Also, as a collateral attribute, or perhaps primary attribute in the 15.5 x 9 setup, hammer weights had, by definition, to be defining the system in the low inertia bandwidth

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026

Original Message:
Sent: 05-19-2018 09:41
From: Karl Roeder
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Mr Ialeggio,
With respect; It seems that you're overthinking this. With a 15.5mm knuckle distance the top of the fly is traveling on a shorter arc. Hence faster, easier re-set. Maybe not. I tune pianos for a living. Mechanical relationships confuse me.

------------------------------
Karl Roeder
Pompano Beach FL

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2018 22:01
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Observing parameters that break all the rules and perform really well, makes me wonder if I know anything at all, about what I think I know.

Specifically. Just finished a 1890's A-1..Came out really nice. Full belly, but for budget reasons only essential parts of the action that have the biggest bang tonally. So, the only action work in the contract was shanks (wng), backchecks (tokiwa), key bushings,and a full regulation and voicing.

The whips were old, but newer than original parts. They were not in the contract, so I didn't touch them. The hammer line was unstable, of course. Checked the spring slot. It and the spring were gunk'd up. Plus, a groove was worn into the rep lever. You could feel the spring grabbing in the worn groove.

For kicks, on one or two, I tried cleaning the gunk, burnishing the groove and added some lube. It had no effect. The spring still grabbed in the slot, and you could feel it. So, sticking to the contract, I accepted the unstable hammer line, and continued, lowering my expectations about what the action regulation would be like when done. Of course, given the whip's spring/rep lever condition, I expected lousy repetition, and was not going to fret about it.

15.5 x 9mm knuckles.  Slightly elevated AR 5.3. relatively light SW. Left the leading alone. leading was more than nothing but not a lot of lead either.

The repetition is bullet proof. This is a happy result, but leaves me feeling completely bornswaggled. Given the amount of time I normally spend messing with rep lever friction, spring tension and smooth spring sliding, struggling to get good, but still real picky repetition, this result, given the completely challenged spring and spring slot, makes me wonder if all the talk about whip springs and re lever friction is barking up the wrong tree. I think this result has something to do with the 15.5 x 9 knuckles, re the angles at which the jack addresses this knuckle geometry...but not sure. I sure would like to know...

The angle at which the jack addresses the knuckle is slightly different than what modern design calls for. Modern parts usually are set up so a line,  perpendicular to the shank through the knuckle core, projected toward the jack center, falls just distal to the jack center. at rest. This action's perpendicular line falls well distal to the jack center. This situation is similar to a Chickering 123 I did a couple of years ago, which also had bullet proof repetition, and the smoothest let off I ever achieved.

Any thoughts on this?


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------

And, while you're at it, how much aftertouch do you use?  as in, what's the +/- tolerance for 'dead-nuts'?  In thousandths of an inch is fine :).

Jim, I don't think phasing is going to be your answer, if you're equating that with 'linkage'.  There must be some slo-mo footage out there that would address this.

------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-19-2018 17:06
From: David Skolnik
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Jim -
Not yet accessed articles - later, so these might be thoroughly moot, but two things still:
- no mention of checking (i think).  Does checking factor into repetition and, in any case, what is your 'go-to' checking distance?
- you describe positive results in both repetition AND smoothness in let-off.  Are we assuming any correlation?

Have you tried quantifying the repetition speed at soft and loud dynamics?  Just tried it with a metronome (and my limited technique). On the particular piano at hand (fingers), 8 repetitions per second was OK,, but by 9 it (or I) was jamming (and not in the good way).  If you can figure the math, you can use the 8 reps per beat and gradually step up the metronome speed.

Is this stupid or what?

------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565

Original Message:
Sent: 05-19-2018 10:31
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

yes, that makes sense, Karl.

But the same result was had with 17 mm knuckles on the other two stellar repetition actions, the Bechstein and the Chick 123. All 3 actions were 9mm, as 9mm is my default knuckle. On the other hand, I have had actions with 17 x 9  knuckle setups which had the more standard picky-beyond-belief and ultimately so-so to lousy repetition, despite heroic messing with whip conditions (new and old whips). So, although this parameter makes sense and is probably part of it, I'm not convinced there is something else obvious and major at play.

Incidentally, on the 3 stellar repetition actions, re the wide bandwidth of excellent functionality, I purposely set the jack forward and aft of the usual placement, de-tuned the carefully set rep-lever height, and messed with spring tensions, without destroying the excellent repetition. Like I said, on these actions repetition functioned becasue some parameter was assisting it.

Also, as a collateral attribute, or perhaps primary attribute in the 15.5 x 9 setup, hammer weights had, by definition, to be defining the system in the low inertia bandwidth

------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026

Original Message:
Sent: 05-19-2018 09:41
From: Karl Roeder
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Mr Ialeggio,
With respect; It seems that you're overthinking this. With a 15.5mm knuckle distance the top of the fly is traveling on a shorter arc. Hence faster, easier re-set. Maybe not. I tune pianos for a living. Mechanical relationships confuse me.

------------------------------
Karl Roeder
Pompano Beach FL

Original Message:
Sent: 05-16-2018 22:01
From: Jim Ialeggio
Subject: Excellent repetition head scatcher

Observing parameters that break all the rules and perform really well, makes me wonder if I know anything at all, about what I think I know.

Specifically. Just finished a 1890's A-1..Came out really nice. Full belly, but for budget reasons only essential parts of the action that have the biggest bang tonally. So, the only action work in the contract was shanks (wng), backchecks (tokiwa), key bushings,and a full regulation and voicing.

The whips were old, but newer than original parts. They were not in the contract, so I didn't touch them. The hammer line was unstable, of course. Checked the spring slot. It and the spring were gunk'd up. Plus, a groove was worn into the rep lever. You could feel the spring grabbing in the worn groove.

For kicks, on one or two, I tried cleaning the gunk, burnishing the groove and added some lube. It had no effect. The spring still grabbed in the slot, and you could feel it. So, sticking to the contract, I accepted the unstable hammer line, and continued, lowering my expectations about what the action regulation would be like when done. Of course, given the whip's spring/rep lever condition, I expected lousy repetition, and was not going to fret about it.

15.5 x 9mm knuckles.  Slightly elevated AR 5.3. relatively light SW. Left the leading alone. leading was more than nothing but not a lot of lead either.

The repetition is bullet proof. This is a happy result, but leaves me feeling completely bornswaggled. Given the amount of time I normally spend messing with rep lever friction, spring tension and smooth spring sliding, struggling to get good, but still real picky repetition, this result, given the completely challenged spring and spring slot, makes me wonder if all the talk about whip springs and re lever friction is barking up the wrong tree. I think this result has something to do with the 15.5 x 9 knuckles, re the angles at which the jack addresses this knuckle geometry...but not sure. I sure would like to know...

The angle at which the jack addresses the knuckle is slightly different than what modern design calls for. Modern parts usually are set up so a line,  perpendicular to the shank through the knuckle core, projected toward the jack center, falls just distal to the jack center. at rest. This action's perpendicular line falls well distal to the jack center. This situation is similar to a Chickering 123 I did a couple of years ago, which also had bullet proof repetition, and the smoothest let off I ever achieved.

Any thoughts on this?


------------------------------
Jim Ialeggio
grandpianosolutions.com
Shirley, MA
978 425-9026
------------------------------