CAUT

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Accelerated Action

  • 1.  Accelerated Action

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-30-2020 13:18
    Hi All,

    Does anyone know what year Steinway discontinued the "leaded keys" feature of the Accelerated Action (AA). The half-round bearing fulcrum has persisted since 1931 through current production. In 1936 the AA concept and production included not only the round bearing, but also locating the key leads closer to the balance pin so as to reduce key inertia. When did Steinway abandon the keys leads location feature?.

    And why did they abandon it. I have asked many who might know, but there seems no clear official statement on this. BTW, the concept and science are sound.

    Thanks -- Nick G

    ------------------------------
    Nick Gravagne, RPT
    Mechanical Engineering
    Nick Gravagne Products
    Strawberry, AZ 85544
    gravagnegang@att.net
    928-476-4143
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-30-2020 19:39
    Nick,

    I don't know the exact year, but I believe it was in the early 1980s.  They had changed the leading to be away from the balance rail in the pianos I worked on when I visited Steinway in 1984, and when I asked about it I didn't get a clear answer as to why.  

    My guess is that since the Accelerated weighting uses more lead, material cost and added labor could have been a factor.









    ------------------------------
    Don Mannino RPT
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-30-2020 19:56

    Hi-


    My understanding is that this gradually became necessary as the hammers got heavier and heavier. There is a limit to the amount of lead that can be fit into a key, and starting from the front requires less- as we all know.  Not to mention it was an easy step to take considering that pretty much every other manufactuer I'm aware of, does it that way.  For the record, I disagree and regularly re-balance actions with slightly lighter hammers and remove at least that first lead up front of the key.  When we visited the factory on a selection tour last year it was explained to me that nowdays keysets arrive from Kluge with the front couple of leads already installed and they take it from there.  That's what I have on the subject. 

    best,
    Dennis Johnson
    St. Olaf College




    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-30-2020 20:26
    Hi, all,

    David and I are sitting here scratching our heads. It seems like it was about the time they went from Pratt Read keyboards to Kluge. We recall pianos from 1980 and 1984 that still had Pratt Read keyframes with accelerated weighing. The person to ask, for an exact year and/or reasons, would be David Kirkland. He was deeply involved with Roy Kehl and the company history Roy was researching.

    For what it’s worth, Steinway owns Kluge now so if front leads are coming pre-installed, you’d think it would be at their request.

    Okay, we gave up and went to dig out the book.

    “The Official Guide to Steinway Pianos” book by Kehl and Kirkland, says that in 1984 they had the "action geometry change; the NY knuckle went farther from the center like Hamburg for improved leverage.” And then it says that by "1985 Conversion completed from Pratt Read (sugar pine keysticks) to Hermann Kluge (Bavarian spruce keysticks) as supplier of keyboards.

    We’re supposing that it was at that time they had just finished up with Teflon then Teflon II Permafree bushing cloth (1982) and were rethinking a lot of the action details. That’s all on pages 126-127 in the book we mentioned. The chapter is called Chapter 3: Steinway & Sons Production Highlights.

    Interesting. Hope it’s of help, Nick.

    Kathy and David


    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-30-2020 21:01
    Interesting discussion! Thanks all. As I recall, mid-80s was when they started using Renner action parts in the Bs and Ds, too.
     
    Teri
     
     
    Hi, all, David and I are sitting here scratching our heads. It seems like it was about the time they went from Pratt Read keyboards to Kluge. We... -posted to the "CAUT" community
    Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login.

    CAUT

      Post New Message
    Re: Accelerated Action
    Reply to Group Reply to Sender
    Jan 30, 2020 8:26 PM
    Kathy Smith
    Hi, all,

    David and I are sitting here scratching our heads. It seems like it was about the time they went from Pratt Read keyboards to Kluge. We recall pianos from 1980 and 1984 that still had Pratt Read keyframes with accelerated weighing. The person to ask, for an exact year and/or reasons, would be David Kirkland. He was deeply involved with Roy Kehl and the company history Roy was researching.

    For what it's worth, Steinway owns Kluge now so if front leads are coming pre-installed, you'd think it would be at their request.

    Okay, we gave up and went to dig out the book.

    "The Official Guide to Steinway Pianos" book by Kehl and Kirkland, says that in 1984 they had the "action geometry change; the NY knuckle went farther from the center like Hamburg for improved leverage." And then it says that by "1985 Conversion completed from Pratt Read (sugar pine keysticks) to Hermann Kluge (Bavarian spruce keysticks) as supplier of keyboards.

    We're supposing that it was at that time they had just finished up with Teflon then Teflon II Permafree bushing cloth (1982) and were rethinking a lot of the action details. That's all on pages 126-127 in the book we mentioned. The chapter is called Chapter 3: Steinway & Sons Production Highlights.

    Interesting. Hope it's of help, Nick.

    Kathy and David

      Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Mark as Inappropriate  

    Original Message



     
    To change your subscriptions, go to My Subscriptions. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to Unsubscribe.



    Original Message------

    Hi, all,

    David and I are sitting here scratching our heads. It seems like it was about the time they went from Pratt Read keyboards to Kluge. We recall pianos from 1980 and 1984 that still had Pratt Read keyframes with accelerated weighing. The person to ask, for an exact year and/or reasons, would be David Kirkland. He was deeply involved with Roy Kehl and the company history Roy was researching.

    For what it’s worth, Steinway owns Kluge now so if front leads are coming pre-installed, you’d think it would be at their request.

    Okay, we gave up and went to dig out the book.

    “The Official Guide to Steinway Pianos” book by Kehl and Kirkland, says that in 1984 they had the "action geometry change; the NY knuckle went farther from the center like Hamburg for improved leverage.” And then it says that by "1985 Conversion completed from Pratt Read (sugar pine keysticks) to Hermann Kluge (Bavarian spruce keysticks) as supplier of keyboards.

    We’re supposing that it was at that time they had just finished up with Teflon then Teflon II Permafree bushing cloth (1982) and were rethinking a lot of the action details. That’s all on pages 126-127 in the book we mentioned. The chapter is called Chapter 3: Steinway & Sons Production Highlights.

    Interesting. Hope it’s of help, Nick.

    Kathy and David



  • 6.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-30-2020 23:59
    Bill Shull might have some info on this. 
    ~ jeannie 

    Jeannie Grassi, Registered Piano Technician
    Bainbridge Island, WA
    206-842-3721



    Original Message


  • 7.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Posted 01-31-2020 00:25
    Hi, All,

    Only FWIW, I think that it's important to remember that, as S&S still
    considers their product to be hand made, that different parts will run
    through/out during productions runs at different rates. In this case,
    I'm pretty sure that the move away from the proper accelerated action
    was begun in the 79/80 production years, and was complete by 84/85. The
    point is that some models would have had the older actions/keysets
    somewhat (but only somewhat) longer that some of the others.

    It's also important to remember that the "accelerated action" actually
    consists of two main parts, U.S. Patents #s 1,826,848; and 2,031,748.
    Neither of them contain the term "accelerated" in the titles of the
    patent application titles. (The former is entitled: "Piano Ky
    Mounting"; and the latter "Piano Keyboard". Even though these patents
    were granted some years apart (1931 & 1936, respectively), that the line
    of research for both of them was developed in parallel is implied in the
    following part of the description of the earlier work, it reads, in part:

    "Owing to the provision of the half-round bearing body, and to the fact that
    the key comes in contact with the pin only along the front and rear
    lines 31, the key may be said to be pivotally mounted upon the bearing
    body and so as to have free and unobstructed rocking movement thereon
    with a minimum of resistance of resistance offered to such rocking
    movement. With this form of novel mounting, the key can be depressed
    with??? great ease and its re-positioning movement, owing to the absence
    of frictional resistance, is effected rapidly and with considerable
    force. One of the important advantages which flows from??? this novel
    mounting, is that a less number of weights as may be incorporated in the
    forward portion of the key."

    (Lines 102 through 119, inclusive. The numbers in the body refer to
    numbered action parts in the patent drawings. The patents are attached.)

    In any event, there were a number of factors involved in the decision,
    most of which have already been ground very finely in the mill here and
    elsewhere many times.

    Hope that this is of some interest, if not help.

    Kind regards.

    Horace


    On 1/30/2020 8:58 PM, Jeannie Grassi via Piano Technicians Guild wrote:
    > Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login.
    >
    > Bill Shull might have some info on this. ~ jeannie
    >
    > Jeannie Grassi, Registered Piano TechnicianBainbridge Island, WA206-842-3721email: grassipianos@gmail.com
    >
    >

    Attachment(s)

    pdf
    US1826848.pdf   585 KB 1 version
    pdf
    US2031748.pdf   667 KB 1 version
    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-31-2020 02:56
    Jeannie,

    I'm not in the loop on a lot of modern Steinway stuff but told Nick what I thought when he called - after some casting about I realized this was probably related to the change to Kluge keys which took place ca. 1984 but as Horace pointed out was not a single moment in time, but a several year process.

    Nick raises a good point when he asks about the quiet distancing from the leading practice by Steinway.  The Accelerated Action gets good play still, today;  I have even seen the label on Steinway Restoration Center rebuilds when no change was made to the pre-accelerated action.   If those who consider the Accelerated Action leading practice important are correct, then that part of the AA was far more important than the half-round balance bearing. 

    I appreciate the discussion on this subject by those smarter than me.   There seems to be real disagreement among them on the value of the pivot-proximate lead placement element of the design - well explained by Alexander in this thread.   Some consider the designs theoretically sound but practically unimportant, David Stanwood has moved away from his past application of the idea,  and some have given the design new life in our trade (Bruce Stevens and Nick).   As Nick is currently writing on action design I look forward to what he has to say.  Personally I'm pleased to use as little lead as possible in my reweighing jobs.  Steinway might have saved on workman's comp claims
    with the use of markedly less key lead....Also saving a little due to a shipping cost difference with preleaded Kluge keys if they stopped using more lead close to the balance rail.

    Bill

    Bill Shull, RPT,  M.Mus.

    Sent from my iPhone



    Original Message


  • 9.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-31-2020 09:48
    I think Bill's phrase "Some consider the designs theoretically sound but practically unimportant" hits the nail on the head. Is there actually a significant advantage to touch and/or performance due to the balance bearing and/or the leading pattern? Has that been shown via actual testing, as opposed to psychological response to marketing? 

    The effect of lead placement within keys was demonstrated pretty thoroughly to be of imperceptible importance by two series of articles on the issue of the inertial components of action design, far outweighed by the effect of hammer mass.

    BTW, as long as we are conversing on the topic and Nick is engaged, I'd like to throw in a comment on his 5:1 (more or less) dogma: While occasional mention has been made of using lighter hammers, it has been a pretty negligible part of the discussion. Historically, ratios up to 10:1 (even occasionally higher) were used very successfully. Among the pianos we continue to rebuild and service, many were designed with at least 6:1 ratios, balanced with appropriate mass hammers. Why should we be urged to redesign those pianos for heavier hammers? Why not match hammer mass to the existing AR? 

    Case in point, my most recent rebuild of a Steinway M from the 20s, I simply used 16 mm knuckles and Abel's "light" hammers, coming fairly close to what had been on the piano originally (it probably had 15.5, but they and the hammers had been replaced in the interim), I removed a bit of lead from the keys (the leading was original), and ended with a lovely playing instrument with facile touch, plenty of power and expressive range. No fussing with moving capstans, etc. Seems to me that should be the default rather than deep analysis and redesign to accommodate heavier hammers.
    Regards,
    Fred Sturm
    fssturm@comcast.net
    http://fredsturm.net
    www.artoftuning.com
    "Art lives from constraints and dies from freedom." Leonardo







    Original Message


  • 10.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Posted 01-31-2020 10:28
    I strongly endorse Fred's conservative approach and add that if the Accelerated Action conferred significant advantages to players, Hamburg would have adopted it too.
     
    Laurence Libin
     
     
    I think Bill's phrase "Some consider the designs theoretically sound but practically unimportant" hits the nail on the head. Is there actually a...
    Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login.

    CAUT

      Post New Message
    Re: Accelerated Action
    Reply to Group Reply to Sender
    Jan 31, 2020 9:48 AM
    Fred Sturm
    I think Bill's phrase "Some consider the designs theoretically sound but practically unimportant" hits the nail on the head. Is there actually a significant advantage to touch and/or performance due to the balance bearing and/or the leading pattern? Has that been shown via actual testing, as opposed to psychological response to marketing? 
     
    The effect of lead placement within keys was demonstrated pretty thoroughly to be of imperceptible importance by two series of articles on the issue of the inertial components of action design, far outweighed by the effect of hammer mass.
     
    BTW, as long as we are conversing on the topic and Nick is engaged, I'd like to throw in a comment on his 5:1 (more or less) dogma: While occasional mention has been made of using lighter hammers, it has been a pretty negligible part of the discussion. Historically, ratios up to 10:1 (even occasionally higher) were used very successfully. Among the pianos we continue to rebuild and service, many were designed with at least 6:1 ratios, balanced with appropriate mass hammers. Why should we be urged to redesign those pianos for heavier hammers? Why not match hammer mass to the existing AR?
     
    Case in point, my most recent rebuild of a Steinway M from the 20s, I simply used 16 mm knuckles and Abel's "light" hammers, coming fairly close to what had been on the piano originally (it probably had 15.5, but they and the hammers had been replaced in the interim), I removed a bit of lead from the keys (the leading was original), and ended with a lovely playing instrument with facile touch, plenty of power and expressive range. No fussing with moving capstans, etc. Seems to me that should be the default rather than deep analysis and redesign to accommodate heavier hammers.
    Regards,
    Fred Sturm
    fssturm@comcast.net
    http://fredsturm.net
    www.artoftuning.com
    "Art lives from constraints and dies from freedom." Leonardo
     
     
     
     


      Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Mark as Inappropriate  

    Original Message



     
    To change your subscriptions, go to My Subscriptions. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to Unsubscribe.



    Original Message------

    I think Bill's phrase "Some consider the designs theoretically sound but practically unimportant" hits the nail on the head. Is there actually a significant advantage to touch and/or performance due to the balance bearing and/or the leading pattern? Has that been shown via actual testing, as opposed to psychological response to marketing? 

    The effect of lead placement within keys was demonstrated pretty thoroughly to be of imperceptible importance by two series of articles on the issue of the inertial components of action design, far outweighed by the effect of hammer mass.

    BTW, as long as we are conversing on the topic and Nick is engaged, I'd like to throw in a comment on his 5:1 (more or less) dogma: While occasional mention has been made of using lighter hammers, it has been a pretty negligible part of the discussion. Historically, ratios up to 10:1 (even occasionally higher) were used very successfully. Among the pianos we continue to rebuild and service, many were designed with at least 6:1 ratios, balanced with appropriate mass hammers. Why should we be urged to redesign those pianos for heavier hammers? Why not match hammer mass to the existing AR? 

    Case in point, my most recent rebuild of a Steinway M from the 20s, I simply used 16 mm knuckles and Abel's "light" hammers, coming fairly close to what had been on the piano originally (it probably had 15.5, but they and the hammers had been replaced in the interim), I removed a bit of lead from the keys (the leading was original), and ended with a lovely playing instrument with facile touch, plenty of power and expressive range. No fussing with moving capstans, etc. Seems to me that should be the default rather than deep analysis and redesign to accommodate heavier hammers.
    Regards,
    Fred Sturm
    fssturm@comcast.net
    http://fredsturm.net
    www.artoftuning.com
    "Art lives from constraints and dies from freedom." Leonardo








  • 11.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-31-2020 12:54
    Hi All,

    Thanks for all your considered input on my questions RE the Accelerated Action. But special thanks to Kathy and David for the research (I have the book), and to Horace for his many unique insights and for uploading the relevant S&S patents. Patent US2031748 clearly details the concept and practical application of the accelerated weighting scheme, and it is based on classical mechanics of rotational inertia. The stated goals are many, but the reduction of key leads travel (arcs displacement) and inertia are primary.

    The main objects of the invention are to reduce the distance the weights or leads have to travel in the depression and rise of the keys and the inertia which has to be overcome in the movements of the keys ...It is therefore apparent that keys having leads placed according to this invention [i.e. closer to the balance pin, NG] will be more responsive, and as the inertia is more readily overcome by pressure of a finger in a light manner ...

    RE Acceleration:

    The improved accelerated key action is found upon experimentation to be quicker than the old action by an average of at least 2 one-hundredths of a second (14 percent) for fortissimo playing, and by approximately 1 one-hundredth of a second (6 percent) for pianissimo playing. These differences were arrived at by high speed motion pictures and are based upon the time one complete cycle, or from the instant of the first touch of the finger to the key to the time when both key and hammer have returned to position for another touch.

    This acceleration in the action of the keys and their hammers is due chiefly to the quicker return of the key and the hammer to its normal position. In pianissimo playing, the lag of the rising key behind the lifted finger averages two and one-half times (21/2) greater in the present day old action as compared with the accelerated and improved action of this invention. [bold print per NG]

    We may speculate all we like as to whether or not the application of this theory and stated goals was effective enough to be clearly discerned and appreciated by pianists, and especially the earliest pianists to be introduced to the AA (Hofmann, Rachmaninoff, Horowitz, and many others). Of course, the cynical point of view is to imagine that if such artists wished to remain in the good graces of Steinway they had no choice but to bring in a rave review. Certainly some of this has been true over the long span of Steinway's dominant legacy, but not all of it.

    Also, recalling Horace's point that Steinway's long production history has been evolutionary, and that making comparisons of what was then to what is now is likely to be fraught with difficulties. There can be no question that today's Steinway hammers are considerably heavier than those of the first decades of the 1900's. Without bringing action ratios into the picture, a typical AA key lead scheme would be ineffective in balancing such heavy hammers. Perhaps the question at this point is not what happened to the AA leads scheme, but why did the Steinway hammer gain so much weight. This seems to be the inverse proportion, as hammer weight went up, the effectiveness of the AA scheme went down. This is a reasonable speculation, but I sense there is more to it than that.  

    I know of several piano rebuilders who routinely apply a hybrid version of the AA concept in that they place key leads closer to the balance pin (i.e. more center-loaded on the front key arm), but not as close to the balance pin as the original AA application . These rebuilders claim to notice the difference (especially in key-system reset) and their clients love the actions. Who are we to disagree?

    Nick


    ------------------------------
    Nick Gravagne, RPT
    Mechanical Engineering
    Nick Gravagne Products
    Strawberry, AZ 85544
    gravagnegang@att.net
    928-476-4143
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 12.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-31-2020 19:06
    Lloyd Meyer would be the person to ask. He was at the helm of S&S at the time of the transition. Dirk Dickten (of blessed memory) told me it had more to do with the excessive numbers of leads they were using by the end of the Pratt Read era. He remarked that while he was in school one of his instructors had remarked "You can make a key from wood or lead. Which one do you think will work better?"
    Above is a set of Kluge keys retrofit to AA weighting by one of our most famous technicians. The weights and wippen assist springs were required due to the enormous hammers that were used and the lead weights added to the hammer cores. Of course all this was a reaction to a poorly performed LHTR on the same piano. Plus le change plus le mem chose I guess.

    Thank you Nick for trying to add some clarity to the action geometry discussion.

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

    Original Message


  • 13.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Posted 02-01-2020 19:03
    Hi, All,

    I was fortunate enough to work on quite a few new Steinway pianos starting (more or less) in 1987. So I spent some time in the factory and got to know several people there who have been very generous in helping me understand how to make Steinways work. I will say that I have never been an employee, and my understanding is far from complete. Any errors in what follows are mine. (BTW, if you are aware of said errors, I would be delighted to learn!)

    There was a lot going on in the early '80s. In fact, there has been quite a lot going on since. But at that time the decision had been made to upgrade the action making machinery. As in all new action manufacturing machines. (!) During that process, Renner parts were used for a bit in the B's and D's to be sure there were enough action parts. Keyset source was changed from Pratt Read to Kluge and key leading went back to the more traditional first lead in the front of the key. Others have given more detail on this than I can. But I do know that the engineers, in cooperation with the Concert Department, looked into the Accelerated Action. Several D's (4?) were prepared to have 2 (or more?) keysets for each with some having balance bearings, some with a beveled balance rail (as in Hamburg pianos throughout), some with first lead at the front, some with first lead by the balance rail. The pianos were then played in their various configurations and rated by a number of artists. There was no obvious preference for leading pattern, but there was some preference for the bearing. I am not privy to the actual experimental protocol or the resulting data. But the decision was made to retain the bearing and go back to the "traditional" leading pattern.

    BTW, I would like to point out that as I understand it, any decision made around the pianos, design or manufacturing, are first and foremost influenced by the artists. In the Model D's. E. g., somewhat heavier hammers, I'm told, have been favored in general by the performers. Perhaps because of the large halls in the US. So if you have questions as to why something is the way it is, start there: why would the artists as a group favor this?

    Another detail that I know was looked at was the angled heel on the NY repetition. Vs the heel being parallel to the repetition body in the Hamburg parts. This difference remains. My impression is that there is a subtle difference in playing, but again no consensus on "better". The angled heel persists in part to help differentiate NY and Hamburg pianos. (Has me wondering if that will change with the emphasis on having the pianos as similar as possible while acknowledging the difference in preferences and halls in North and South America vs the rest of the world.) BTW, the capstan angle was also looked at and the decision was to have them vertical. Either no difference in feel or too little to matter. I've always wondered if the angled capstan (and in the back check wire angle) had more to do with accommodating variance in production than being a design point.

    My own view of the leading "preference" is that I would predict that the few pianists that can out-repeat almost any piano will, in general, prefer accelerated leading. I've been told that the improved repetition can be demonstrated. But if it improves from 13 times/sec. to 14 times/sec. and few players can play even up to 13/sec, then there would be a lot of artists that don't recognize that benefit.

    I would propose that the benefit to the traditional leading (first lead farthest from the balance rail) is the difference in feel between very soft and very loud playing. IMHO, without any firm evidence other than experience with pianos with a wide variety of leading patterns, is that it actually feels good to have the action resist noticeably when playing very loud. Hence, I am of the opinion that too few leads is sub-optimal as much as too many. I hope you all will take a close look at that and get back to me. !

    Conclusion: for me in most cases it probably makes little difference where the leads are. Strike weight and balance weight rule. ! (All else equal...)

    Doug



    Original Message


  • 14.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 02-02-2020 00:45
    Hi Doug,

    I echo you opinion that it's important to have mass in the keystick and that this is an important inertial connection for the pianist to sense and control the stroke.  It needs to be smooth from key to key for the best action.

    David Stanwood

    ------------------------------
    David Stanwood
    Stanwood Piano Innovations Inc.
    West Tisbury MA
    508-693-1583
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 15.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Posted 02-01-2020 20:40
    Hi, All,

    I was fortunate enough to work on quite a few new Steinway pianos starting (more or less) in 1987. So I spent some time in the factory and got to know several people there who have been very generous in helping me understand how to make Steinways work. I will say that I have never been an employee, and my understanding is far from complete. Any errors in what follows are mine. (BTW, if you are aware of said errors, I would be delighted to learn!)

    There was a lot going on in the early '80s. In fact, there has been quite a lot going on since. But at that time the decision had been made to upgrade the action making machinery. As in all new action manufacturing machines. (!) During that process, Renner parts were used for a bit in the B's and D's to be sure there were enough action parts. Keyset source was changed from Pratt Read to Kluge and key leading went back to the more traditional first lead in the front of the key. Others have given more detail on this than I can. But I do know that the engineers, in cooperation with the Concert Department, looked into the Accelerated Action. Several D's (4?) were prepared to have 2 (or more?) keysets for each with some having balance bearings, some with a beveled balance rail (as in Hamburg pianos throughout), some with first lead at the front, some with first lead by the balance rail. The pianos were then played in their various configurations and rated by a number of artists. There was no obvious preference for leading pattern, but there was some preference for the bearing. I am not privy to the actual experimental protocol or the resulting data. But the decision was made to retain the bearing and go back to the "traditional" leading pattern.

    BTW, I would like to point out that as I understand it, any decision made around the pianos, design or manufacturing, are first and foremost influenced by the artists. In the Model D's. E. g., somewhat heavier hammers, I'm told, have been favored in general by the performers. Perhaps because of the large halls in the US. So if you have questions as to why something is the way it is, start there: why would the artists as a group favor this?

    Another detail that I know was looked at was the angled heel on the NY repetition. Vs the heel being parallel to the repetition body in the Hamburg parts. This difference remains. My impression is that there is a subtle difference in playing, but again no consensus on "better". The angled heel persists in part to help differentiate NY and Hamburg pianos. (Has me wondering if that will change with the emphasis on having the pianos as similar as possible while acknowledging the difference in preferences and halls in North and South America vs the rest of the world.) BTW, the capstan angle was also looked at and the decision was to have them vertical. Either no difference in feel or too little to matter. I've always wondered if the angled capstan (and in the back check wire angle) had more to do with accommodating variance in production than being a design point.

    My own view of the leading "preference" is that I would predict that the few pianists that can out-repeat almost any piano will, in general, prefer accelerated leading. I've been told that the improved repetition can be demonstrated. But if it improves from 13 times/sec. to 14 times/sec. and few players can play even up to 13/sec, then there would be a lot of artists that don't recognize that benefit.

    I would propose that the benefit to the traditional leading (first lead farthest from the balance rail) is the difference in feel between very soft and very loud playing. IMHO, without any firm evidence other than experience with pianos with a wide variety of leading patterns, is that it actually feels good to have the action resist noticeably when playing very loud. Hence, I am of the opinion that too few leads is sub-optimal as much as too many. I hope you all will take a close look at that and get back to me. !

    Conclusion: for me in most cases it probably makes little difference where the leads are. Strike weight and balance weight rule. ! (All else equal...)

    Doug


    Doug Wood, RPT
    206-935-5797






    Original Message


  • 16.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Member
    Posted 02-03-2020 09:06
    This little pamphlet explains what the accelerated action is and has some sketches of the key lead placement and fulcrum. The boiling of action parts in paraffin may explain why actions became sluggish or developed verdigis . Perhaps the heat generated by center pins warmed up the bushing cloth that drew out some paraffin that later gummed up the works. 


        https://archive.org/details/steinwaylogic00stei/page/16/mode/2up

    ------------------------------
    James Kelly
    Owner- Fur Elise Piano Service
    Pawleys Island SC
    843-325-4357
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 17.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 02-03-2020 10:08
    James -- wow, what a little gem this is! I noted that it is dated 1935 in pencil. Thanks for sharing.

    BTW,  I used to live in Summerville, SC way back in 1976-77, worked in Charleston for Fox Music House. Maurice Fox was the owner operator and his son was a young guy just learning the business.

    ng

    ------------------------------
    Nick Gravagne, RPT
    Mechanical Engineering
    Nick Gravagne Products
    Strawberry, AZ 85544
    gravagnegang@att.net
    928-476-4143
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 18.  RE: Accelerated Action

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 02-03-2020 19:28
    "Boiling" in paraffin should probably be interpreted as dipping in melted paraffin wax or perhaps heated "paraffin oil." I doubt you could get bushings to stick to paraffin impregnated wood, so probably these were bushed and pinned flanges. It would seem quite likely that the bushed and pinned end of the shank was also dipped. The bushings of this era of Steinway certainly feel like they are impregnated with something, not just raw wool.

    Interesting to see in the patent for the bearings Horace provided, there is a slot mortised in the rail to hold the bearings in alignment. I wonder if that part of the design was ever used (it was replaced by strips of felt in practice, at least in later years). Also, in the illustrations, the balance holes are chamfered on the bottom, along the side of the hole facing front. No mention was made of this in the patent description, but it shows up in figures 3 and 5, and is in keeping with what I have observed in pianos of the era.
    Regards,
    Fred Sturm
    "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination." - Einstein










    Original Message