Pianotech

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Let me just add that the question about whether it's "better" to have more leads closer to the point of rotation versus fewer leads farther out I would imagine comes down to the effect on the MOI when you compare less mass versus moving the center of mass closer to the point of rotation i,e., the balance rail. I'll let others reaffirm what I thought to be the case. 

It might be noted that I, when leading keys from scratch, opt to use fewer leads farther out from the balance rail.  But given a key set that already has more leads closer to the balance rail, I don't bother to change that as I think any benefit to the system as a whole is so small it's not worth the effort. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Let me just add that the question about whether it's "better" to have more leads closer to the point of rotation versus fewer leads farther out I would imagine comes down to the effect on the MOI when you compare less mass versus moving the center of mass closer to the point of rotation i,e., the balance rail. I'll let others reaffirm what I thought to be the case. 

It might be noted that I, when leading keys from scratch, opt to use fewer leads farther out from the balance rail.  But given a key set that already has more leads closer to the balance rail, I don't bother to change that as I think any benefit to the system as a whole is so small it's not worth the effort. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Let me just add that the question about whether it's "better" to have more leads closer to the point of rotation versus fewer leads farther out I would imagine comes down to the effect on the MOI when you compare less mass versus moving the center of mass closer to the point of rotation i,e., the balance rail. I'll let others reaffirm what I thought to be the case. 

It might be noted that I, when leading keys from scratch, opt to use fewer leads farther out from the balance rail.  But given a key set that already has more leads closer to the balance rail, I don't bother to change that as I think any benefit to the system as a whole is so small it's not worth the effort. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

Wim

Difference between 14 and 16 lb sheets vary between makers. With Ronsen the difference is manifested mostly in terms of sheet thickness. Probably true with Renner too. 

One gram difference between the two is not insignificant. In terms of balance weight or front weight it will be 5-6 grams depending on the AR. That's significant in terms of inertia. 

Alexander

i don't quite understand what you're talking about. A difference of 1.5 grams (or 15% off the hammer mass) is substantial in terms of hammer weight for much of the action and will make a very big difference in inertia between the two actions depending, again, on the AR. 

i think you mean adding one 14 gram lead at the midpoint of the key front will "reduce" the balance weight. But the main issue in terms of parity between the two actions is inertia. 

Not necessarily. If you want them to feel the same you will have to insure that the ARs and strike weights are the same or if the ARs are different then you will have to adjust the strike weights to compensate or vice versa  

Steinways have a tendency to be inconsistent mostly in terms of key ratios. So start by assessing those. 

The simplest way to get touch uniformity is by starting with uniform FW curves and work backwards to establish the SW curves that will produce the same balance weight. I outlined this procedure in the recent "key dip" thread. 

It is an incorrect assumption that a B will need heavier hammers than an M. The original hammers between those two models didn't have much difference, if any. The size of the pianos alone will produce tonal differences most noticeable in the lower part of the scale. 

In my opinion, this whole thread has been an illustration of the extreme value of the Fandrich/ Rhodes weightbench system.  With just three simple numbers any action can be made to feel identical to another. 1 Strike Weight, 2. Action Ratio 3. Inertial Touch Factor.  The ITF scale is particularly valuable especially after gaining experience with it. I know exactly what a 200 ITF feels like and a 300 ITF feels like and all in-between. That says a lot right there. Any other technician using the the F/R Weightbench for any length of time would know those touches as well.  Just recently, I had a pianist come to my shop and had him take his Yamaha C7 action from a 293 ITF and change it to a 200 ITF. Now he knows what those touches feel like. He said this " I can play fast passages with relaxed hand! This never happened before. Its just a different instrument now". 

So if you want both instruments to be identical, this can easily be achieved with the F/R.
-chris

In my opinion, this whole thread has been an illustration of the extreme value of the Fandrich/ Rhodes weightbench system.  With just three simple numbers any action can be made to feel identical to another. 1 Strike Weight, 2. Action Ratio 3. Inertial Touch Factor.  The ITF scale is particularly valuable especially after gaining experience with it. I know exactly what a 200 ITF feels like and a 300 ITF feels like and all in-between. That says a lot right there. Any other technician using the the F/R Weightbench for any length of time would know those touches as well.  Just recently, I had a pianist come to my shop and had him take his Yamaha C7 action from a 293 ITF and change it to a 200 ITF. Now he knows what those touches feel like. He said this " I can play fast passages with relaxed hand! This never happened before. Its just a different instrument now". 

So if you want both instruments to be identical, this can easily be achieved with the F/R.
-chris

In my opinion, this whole thread has been an illustration of the extreme value of the Fandrich/ Rhodes weightbench system.  With just three simple numbers any action can be made to feel identical to another. 1 Strike Weight, 2. Action Ratio 3. Inertial Touch Factor.  The ITF scale is particularly valuable especially after gaining experience with it. I know exactly what a 200 ITF feels like and a 300 ITF feels like and all in-between. That says a lot right there. Any other technician using the the F/R Weightbench for any length of time would know those touches as well.  Just recently, I had a pianist come to my shop and had him take his Yamaha C7 action from a 293 ITF and change it to a 200 ITF. Now he knows what those touches feel like. He said this " I can play fast passages with relaxed hand! This never happened before. Its just a different instrument now". 

So if you want both instruments to be identical, this can easily be achieved with the F/R.
-chris

I recall reading the "actions to die for" article by Fandrich and Rhodes and doing an analysis of the ideal ITF and it corresponds very closely to the  ~85% of the Stanwood FW maximum at a medium BW (38g). 

The same BW achieves with a lower FW will yield lower inertia and higher FW will yield higher inertia. 

Again, it's not *because* of the FW (or key leads) it's that the FW if assessed in the context of a constant BW will directly indicate the level of inertia. 

Whether you achieve your goal with a higher AR and lower SW or a lower AR and higher SW doesn't really matter in terms of inertia. It does matter, however, in terms of regulation and that is a consideration. 

It should be noted that on Steinway pianos the main variable for AR is the key ratio and that's because capstan placement is historically very inconsistent. Key ratios that I've measured have ranged (Stanwood system) from .48 to .56. That is a huge difference. 

In my opinion, this whole thread has been an illustration of the extreme value of the Fandrich/ Rhodes weightbench system.  With just three simple numbers any action can be made to feel identical to another. 1 Strike Weight, 2. Action Ratio 3. Inertial Touch Factor.  The ITF scale is particularly valuable especially after gaining experience with it. I know exactly what a 200 ITF feels like and a 300 ITF feels like and all in-between. That says a lot right there. Any other technician using the the F/R Weightbench for any length of time would know those touches as well.  Just recently, I had a pianist come to my shop and had him take his Yamaha C7 action from a 293 ITF and change it to a 200 ITF. Now he knows what those touches feel like. He said this " I can play fast passages with relaxed hand! This never happened before. Its just a different instrument now". 

So if you want both instruments to be identical, this can easily be achieved with the F/R.
-chris

Here's an example of why the number of leads can be misleading. In this example we have note C4 with 4 leads but a FW of only 21.5 grams!  That's relatively low and would not present an inertia problem if the SW yielded a BW of something reasonable or even on the high side, say, 42 grams. Believe it or not you could still easily add 5 grams of FW to get the BW down to a more comfortable 37 grams and be in no danger of a high inertia action. 

I recall reading the "actions to die for" article by Fandrich and Rhodes and doing an analysis of the ideal ITF and it corresponds very closely to the  ~85% of the Stanwood FW maximum at a medium BW (38g). 

The same BW achieves with a lower FW will yield lower inertia and higher FW will yield higher inertia. 

Again, it's not *because* of the FW (or key leads) it's that the FW if assessed in the context of a constant BW will directly indicate the level of inertia. 

Whether you achieve your goal with a higher AR and lower SW or a lower AR and higher SW doesn't really matter in terms of inertia. It does matter, however, in terms of regulation and that is a consideration. 

It should be noted that on Steinway pianos the main variable for AR is the key ratio and that's because capstan placement is historically very inconsistent. Key ratios that I've measured have ranged (Stanwood system) from .48 to .56. That is a huge difference. 

In my opinion, this whole thread has been an illustration of the extreme value of the Fandrich/ Rhodes weightbench system.  With just three simple numbers any action can be made to feel identical to another. 1 Strike Weight, 2. Action Ratio 3. Inertial Touch Factor.  The ITF scale is particularly valuable especially after gaining experience with it. I know exactly what a 200 ITF feels like and a 300 ITF feels like and all in-between. That says a lot right there. Any other technician using the the F/R Weightbench for any length of time would know those touches as well.  Just recently, I had a pianist come to my shop and had him take his Yamaha C7 action from a 293 ITF and change it to a 200 ITF. Now he knows what those touches feel like. He said this " I can play fast passages with relaxed hand! This never happened before. Its just a different instrument now". 

So if you want both instruments to be identical, this can easily be achieved with the F/R.
-chris

Here's an example of why the number of leads can be misleading. In this example we have note C4 with 4 leads but a FW of only 21.5 grams!  That's relatively low and would not present an inertia problem if the SW yielded a BW of something reasonable or even on the high side, say, 42 grams. Believe it or not you could still easily add 5 grams of FW to get the BW down to a more comfortable 37 grams and be in no danger of a high inertia action. 

I recall reading the "actions to die for" article by Fandrich and Rhodes and doing an analysis of the ideal ITF and it corresponds very closely to the  ~85% of the Stanwood FW maximum at a medium BW (38g). 

The same BW achieves with a lower FW will yield lower inertia and higher FW will yield higher inertia. 

Again, it's not *because* of the FW (or key leads) it's that the FW if assessed in the context of a constant BW will directly indicate the level of inertia. 

Whether you achieve your goal with a higher AR and lower SW or a lower AR and higher SW doesn't really matter in terms of inertia. It does matter, however, in terms of regulation and that is a consideration. 

It should be noted that on Steinway pianos the main variable for AR is the key ratio and that's because capstan placement is historically very inconsistent. Key ratios that I've measured have ranged (Stanwood system) from .48 to .56. That is a huge difference. 

In my opinion, this whole thread has been an illustration of the extreme value of the Fandrich/ Rhodes weightbench system.  With just three simple numbers any action can be made to feel identical to another. 1 Strike Weight, 2. Action Ratio 3. Inertial Touch Factor.  The ITF scale is particularly valuable especially after gaining experience with it. I know exactly what a 200 ITF feels like and a 300 ITF feels like and all in-between. That says a lot right there. Any other technician using the the F/R Weightbench for any length of time would know those touches as well.  Just recently, I had a pianist come to my shop and had him take his Yamaha C7 action from a 293 ITF and change it to a 200 ITF. Now he knows what those touches feel like. He said this " I can play fast passages with relaxed hand! This never happened before. Its just a different instrument now". 

So if you want both instruments to be identical, this can easily be achieved with the F/R.
-chris

Here's an example of why the number of leads can be misleading. In this example we have note C4 with 4 leads but a FW of only 21.5 grams!  That's relatively low and would not present an inertia problem if the SW yielded a BW of something reasonable or even on the high side, say, 42 grams. Believe it or not you could still easily add 5 grams of FW to get the BW down to a more comfortable 37 grams and be in no danger of a high inertia action. 

I recall reading the "actions to die for" article by Fandrich and Rhodes and doing an analysis of the ideal ITF and it corresponds very closely to the  ~85% of the Stanwood FW maximum at a medium BW (38g). 

The same BW achieves with a lower FW will yield lower inertia and higher FW will yield higher inertia. 

Again, it's not *because* of the FW (or key leads) it's that the FW if assessed in the context of a constant BW will directly indicate the level of inertia. 

Whether you achieve your goal with a higher AR and lower SW or a lower AR and higher SW doesn't really matter in terms of inertia. It does matter, however, in terms of regulation and that is a consideration.