Pianotech

I'll be evaluating a couple of Samick-built grands in the next couple of weeks for new customers.  As I was thinking of this, a question occurred to me.

As background, a couple of years ago I did some action work on a D H Baldwin built by Samick.  I weighed all of the hammers, entered the data on a speadsheet, graphed the numbers and extracted a trend line.  The trend line was quite linear, even though I graphed it as a polynomial.  It was consistently heaver than Stanwood Curve 10, and at its outer extremities exceeded Stanwood Curve 11.  I consider this to be a pretty heavy set of hammers.

The keys, as I remember them, had little or no lead in them.  The wippens were set up with helper springs, which were tasked with the whole tsk bringing the touchweight down to a reasonable level.

Though doing such would not now be my go-to choice, I leaded the keys to achieve Stanwood FrontWeight Ceiling.  The resulting balance weight, with the springs disengaged was upwards of 47 grams for the first five notes of the scale.  I don't have the data recorded for any other notes -- I think I just gave up and proceeded to set reset the helper springs for a reasonable down weight.

I consider this whole scenario to represent a high level of inertia -- unacceptably high in my current estimation.  My judgement then was that my usual tactics for reducing the weight of an existing set of hammers were woefully inadequate for the task in front of me.

So my question is this:  Have some of you, or any of you, reworked a comparable Samick action, using significantly lighter hammers, and maybe moving capstans?  If so, what did you end up doing in regard to the helper springs?  How would you evaluate your results in playability and tone.

I am not revving up to try to sell work to these new customers right now, but I am genuinely curious as to whether any of you has gone into full-hobby-mode with one of these things, and come up with something interesting.

Hi Floyd,

<o:p></o:p>Samick balanced their actions to a normal down weight with the support springs attached and no particular attention paid to how strong they were.  We've seen many examples of a Samicks with a normal BW and no lead in the keys except for a heavy lead near the back check.  Not ideal.  <o:p></o:p>

For Front Weight ceiling (not always my choice), a medium inertial playing quality will be achieved with low Balance Weights of 33-37g range without support springs.  You get that by adjusting hammer weight and/or action ratio.   Best practice is to mock up notes in the center of the piano and see what StrikeWt/FrontWt/BalanceWt levels will make for a workable setup. I personally like to mock up at C4.   A key indicator of inertia quality is the sum of BW + FW (without the support springs hooked up).  C4 FW ceiling is 30g so that target for a medium inertia quality is 63g-67g.   <o:p></o:p>

If you want to use the support springs the classic/conservative application emulates Hamburg Steinway production in the 1920s.  They used support springs on 88 notes with enough tension to support the weight of the wippen.  This means the springs on all 88 notes are working approximately 9g off the BW.   Balance the action with springs unattached to a BW that is 9 grams higher than your final BW with springs hooked up.  <o:p></o:p>

You can rough out the support spring tension with the stack on the bench and hammers flipped up.  Adjust the support spring tension so the wippens hang level.   Then fine the balance weight in the finished action after the keys are weighted.  <o:p></o:p>

If you don't have 88 support springs it's best to taper the spring tension down to the break to avoid big changes front weight and the resulting in keystick inertia at that transition.<o:p></o:p>

I sold Samick pianos for many years and always removed the springs and replaced the new hammers with lighter sets from Ronsen and releaded the keys normally as a matter of course.  This solved the inertia issues.      <o:p></o:p>

I'll be evaluating a couple of Samick-built grands in the next couple of weeks for new customers.  As I was thinking of this, a question occurred to me.

As background, a couple of years ago I did some action work on a D H Baldwin built by Samick.  I weighed all of the hammers, entered the data on a speadsheet, graphed the numbers and extracted a trend line.  The trend line was quite linear, even though I graphed it as a polynomial.  It was consistently heaver than Stanwood Curve 10, and at its outer extremities exceeded Stanwood Curve 11.  I consider this to be a pretty heavy set of hammers.

The keys, as I remember them, had little or no lead in them.  The wippens were set up with helper springs, which were tasked with the whole tsk bringing the touchweight down to a reasonable level.

Though doing such would not now be my go-to choice, I leaded the keys to achieve Stanwood FrontWeight Ceiling.  The resulting balance weight, with the springs disengaged was upwards of 47 grams for the first five notes of the scale.  I don't have the data recorded for any other notes -- I think I just gave up and proceeded to set reset the helper springs for a reasonable down weight.

I consider this whole scenario to represent a high level of inertia -- unacceptably high in my current estimation.  My judgement then was that my usual tactics for reducing the weight of an existing set of hammers were woefully inadequate for the task in front of me.

So my question is this:  Have some of you, or any of you, reworked a comparable Samick action, using significantly lighter hammers, and maybe moving capstans?  If so, what did you end up doing in regard to the helper springs?  How would you evaluate your results in playability and tone.

I am not revving up to try to sell work to these new customers right now, but I am genuinely curious as to whether any of you has gone into full-hobby-mode with one of these things, and come up with something interesting.

Thank you for your quick and helpful response, David. 

Which of the Ronson products did you lean toward?  I have used the Wieckerts on three piano thus far, and intend to install some of the Baconfelts in a couple of instruments this year. 

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd RPT
Regina SK
(306) 502-9103

Original Message:
Sent: 04-02-2023 05:00
From: David Stanwood
Subject: Samick Hammers and Touchweight

Hi Floyd,

<o:p></o:p>Samick balanced their actions to a normal down weight with the support springs attached and no particular attention paid to how strong they were.  We've seen many examples of a Samicks with a normal BW and no lead in the keys except for a heavy lead near the back check.  Not ideal.  <o:p></o:p>

For Front Weight ceiling (not always my choice), a medium inertial playing quality will be achieved with low Balance Weights of 33-37g range without support springs.  You get that by adjusting hammer weight and/or action ratio.   Best practice is to mock up notes in the center of the piano and see what StrikeWt/FrontWt/BalanceWt levels will make for a workable setup. I personally like to mock up at C4.   A key indicator of inertia quality is the sum of BW + FW (without the support springs hooked up).  C4 FW ceiling is 30g so that target for a medium inertia quality is 63g-67g.   <o:p></o:p>

If you want to use the support springs the classic/conservative application emulates Hamburg Steinway production in the 1920s.  They used support springs on 88 notes with enough tension to support the weight of the wippen.  This means the springs on all 88 notes are working approximately 9g off the BW.   Balance the action with springs unattached to a BW that is 9 grams higher than your final BW with springs hooked up.  <o:p></o:p>

You can rough out the support spring tension with the stack on the bench and hammers flipped up.  Adjust the support spring tension so the wippens hang level.   Then fine the balance weight in the finished action after the keys are weighted.  <o:p></o:p>

If you don't have 88 support springs it's best to taper the spring tension down to the break to avoid big changes front weight and the resulting in keystick inertia at that transition.<o:p></o:p>

I sold Samick pianos for many years and always removed the springs and replaced the new hammers with lighter sets from Ronsen and releaded the keys normally as a matter of course.  This solved the inertia issues.      <o:p></o:p>

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

Original Message:
Sent: 04-01-2023 23:27
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: Samick Hammers and Touchweight

I'll be evaluating a couple of Samick-built grands in the next couple of weeks for new customers.  As I was thinking of this, a question occurred to me.

As background, a couple of years ago I did some action work on a D H Baldwin built by Samick.  I weighed all of the hammers, entered the data on a speadsheet, graphed the numbers and extracted a trend line.  The trend line was quite linear, even though I graphed it as a polynomial.  It was consistently heaver than Stanwood Curve 10, and at its outer extremities exceeded Stanwood Curve 11.  I consider this to be a pretty heavy set of hammers.

The keys, as I remember them, had little or no lead in them.  The wippens were set up with helper springs, which were tasked with the whole tsk bringing the touchweight down to a reasonable level.

Though doing such would not now be my go-to choice, I leaded the keys to achieve Stanwood FrontWeight Ceiling.  The resulting balance weight, with the springs disengaged was upwards of 47 grams for the first five notes of the scale.  I don't have the data recorded for any other notes -- I think I just gave up and proceeded to set reset the helper springs for a reasonable down weight.

I consider this whole scenario to represent a high level of inertia -- unacceptably high in my current estimation.  My judgement then was that my usual tactics for reducing the weight of an existing set of hammers were woefully inadequate for the task in front of me.

So my question is this:  Have some of you, or any of you, reworked a comparable Samick action, using significantly lighter hammers, and maybe moving capstans?  If so, what did you end up doing in regard to the helper springs?  How would you evaluate your results in playability and tone.

I am not revving up to try to sell work to these new customers right now, but I am genuinely curious as to whether any of you has gone into full-hobby-mode with one of these things, and come up with something interesting.

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd RPT
Regina SK
(306) 502-9103
------------------------------

I'll chime in,

Since I have been using inertia to make adjustments to a grand piano action, here is a different perspective, as there have been some interesting revelations.

• 1)      Only one facet of inertia is only ever brought up, its level of intensity. But its note to note values for smoothness are completely ignored.
• 2)      There's an ongoing assumption that I keep reading which is – If Strike weight is smooth, Friction is smooth, Front weight is smooth, then inertia must be smooth. I find this to be false of which there are several factors for this, but it turns out that front weight as a measurement exacerbates inertia problems rather than fixes them. Mainly because you reduce a leads effectiveness by sliding it back on a key.

Using a note in the middle of the keyboard for testing inertia also makes an assumption regarding the Inertia Range (average from Note #1-#88= 73g through 63g, a 10g of inertia force variance from bass to treble ). Instead of a middle key, I opted for using notes #2,#3 (which are the worse-case scenario 'normal keys') to do a load test to determine the proper amount of lead needed. Then I load test #86,#87. This way the inertia level is known and can be changed if needed, plus smoothness can be reliably addressed. Inertia smoothness can only be corrected when inertia is charted after results from the load test measurement. This also bypasses the need to use Action Ratio and Balance Weight as indicators.

Wippen assist springs would only complicate and make inertia smoothness a headache. I'm pretty sure those were designed with inertia level only in mind. My preference is to make things simple.

Basically this:

• 1)      I use a standard one size fits all Strike weight curve.
• 2)      Fix all friction
• 3)      Use an inertia measurement to properly lead keys to control inertia level and smoothness.

I find this 3 step process fixes every action, stream lines the measurements, and provides super nice results.

-chris

------------------------------
Chernobieff Piano Restorations
"Where Tone is Key"
865-986-7720 (text only please)

Original Message:
Sent: 04-02-2023 07:57
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: Samick Hammers and Touchweight

Thank you for your quick and helpful response, David. 

Which of the Ronson products did you lean toward?  I have used the Wieckerts on three piano thus far, and intend to install some of the Baconfelts in a couple of instruments this year. 

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd RPT
Regina SK
(306) 502-9103

Original Message:
Sent: 04-02-2023 05:00
From: David Stanwood
Subject: Samick Hammers and Touchweight

Hi Floyd,

<o:p></o:p>Samick balanced their actions to a normal down weight with the support springs attached and no particular attention paid to how strong they were.  We've seen many examples of a Samicks with a normal BW and no lead in the keys except for a heavy lead near the back check.  Not ideal.  <o:p></o:p>

For Front Weight ceiling (not always my choice), a medium inertial playing quality will be achieved with low Balance Weights of 33-37g range without support springs.  You get that by adjusting hammer weight and/or action ratio.   Best practice is to mock up notes in the center of the piano and see what StrikeWt/FrontWt/BalanceWt levels will make for a workable setup. I personally like to mock up at C4.   A key indicator of inertia quality is the sum of BW + FW (without the support springs hooked up).  C4 FW ceiling is 30g so that target for a medium inertia quality is 63g-67g.   <o:p></o:p>

If you want to use the support springs the classic/conservative application emulates Hamburg Steinway production in the 1920s.  They used support springs on 88 notes with enough tension to support the weight of the wippen.  This means the springs on all 88 notes are working approximately 9g off the BW.   Balance the action with springs unattached to a BW that is 9 grams higher than your final BW with springs hooked up.  <o:p></o:p>

You can rough out the support spring tension with the stack on the bench and hammers flipped up.  Adjust the support spring tension so the wippens hang level.   Then fine the balance weight in the finished action after the keys are weighted.  <o:p></o:p>

If you don't have 88 support springs it's best to taper the spring tension down to the break to avoid big changes front weight and the resulting in keystick inertia at that transition.<o:p></o:p>

I sold Samick pianos for many years and always removed the springs and replaced the new hammers with lighter sets from Ronsen and releaded the keys normally as a matter of course.  This solved the inertia issues.      <o:p></o:p>

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

Original Message:
Sent: 04-01-2023 23:27
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: Samick Hammers and Touchweight

I'll be evaluating a couple of Samick-built grands in the next couple of weeks for new customers.  As I was thinking of this, a question occurred to me.

As background, a couple of years ago I did some action work on a D H Baldwin built by Samick.  I weighed all of the hammers, entered the data on a speadsheet, graphed the numbers and extracted a trend line.  The trend line was quite linear, even though I graphed it as a polynomial.  It was consistently heaver than Stanwood Curve 10, and at its outer extremities exceeded Stanwood Curve 11.  I consider this to be a pretty heavy set of hammers.

The keys, as I remember them, had little or no lead in them.  The wippens were set up with helper springs, which were tasked with the whole tsk bringing the touchweight down to a reasonable level.

Though doing such would not now be my go-to choice, I leaded the keys to achieve Stanwood FrontWeight Ceiling.  The resulting balance weight, with the springs disengaged was upwards of 47 grams for the first five notes of the scale.  I don't have the data recorded for any other notes -- I think I just gave up and proceeded to set reset the helper springs for a reasonable down weight.

I consider this whole scenario to represent a high level of inertia -- unacceptably high in my current estimation.  My judgement then was that my usual tactics for reducing the weight of an existing set of hammers were woefully inadequate for the task in front of me.

So my question is this:  Have some of you, or any of you, reworked a comparable Samick action, using significantly lighter hammers, and maybe moving capstans?  If so, what did you end up doing in regard to the helper springs?  How would you evaluate your results in playability and tone.

I am not revving up to try to sell work to these new customers right now, but I am genuinely curious as to whether any of you has gone into full-hobby-mode with one of these things, and come up with something interesting.

------------------------------
Floyd Gadd RPT
Regina SK
(306) 502-9103
------------------------------