BODDIN

PIANOSERVICE

David Stanwood also offers SALA . The S tanwood A djustable L everage A ction is a modification under the keyboard that allows you to manually change the fulcrum position under the key with multiple flexible ratio/dynamic enertion choices. SALA and the MBA are different. MBA, the MagneticBalanceAction by Hans Venlo only changes the BW by adjusting the magnets in the key. SALA changes the inertia in the touch by changing the ratio.
Join the ‘Precision Touch Design Platform’
OBW available at Jahn
Also the procedure to calibrate the 88 keys in four or five different DW sections is not very efficient to make an equal BW. Indeed, in the bass, medium and discant friction differs, hence traditionally this different DW sections but the actual friction per key is not mesured here. And also the recommendations for the UW which are only specified by a +limit value number don’t not make sense. See Steinway example here with UW specified +19 for all sections. So this conservative procedure is clearly less precise. It’s so logic to use BW for keyweight calculation.
Friction does not affect the balance weight or the dynamic touchweight and is consequently not used in the Stanwood equation. BW   is   the   constant   value   PTD   uses   as   reference   to   determine the frontweight (FW).
01 05 2000 Danny Boddin
And again if you don't analyse and adjust the hammerweights primarily, you’ll never get an equal decreasing inertia in dynamic touch. You could assume that an error of one gram more or less in a hammer is negligible when balancing the touchweight, but with e.g. a transmission ratio of 5.5 you get 1 gr x 5.5 = 5.5 grams static weight difference.
Traditional downweight calibration compensates this 5,5 gr weight difference with the amount or position of lead in the frontpart of the key. This does not result in an equal decreasing leadweight pattern and creates additional irregularity in dynamic touch because the inertia of the key weight also contributes +/- 10% to the total dynamic touch weight.
C40 with a BW + FW = ( WW x KR ) + ( SW x Ratio ) light hammer 8,6 gr : 37,96 + 22,8 = ( 16 x 0,5 ) + ( 8,6 x 6,6 ) correct SW/Ratio matches heavier hammer 10,5 gr : 37,90 + 22,8 = ( 16 x 0,5 ) + ( 10,5 x 5,4 )

Imagine working in production with a new standard for leadweighting the keys, reliable and predictable in dynamic touchweight. I belief this will be the future for piano actions.
Over the years David could compared numerous PTD analyses and also refered them to the pianists feedback. With this information he found out which touch plays with comfort and which don’t work out that good. The Stanwood equitation made it possible to know which hamerweight and ratio can be combined in order to get an acceptable dynamic inertia in the touch. The PTDAE has been teaching for ten years now and over 500 Precision Touch Designs have been installed in Europe.
Out of PTD David Stanwood developted recently his SNAP . The Stanwood new Action Protocol is primarily conceived to be used in factory since it is adapted with a standard for production. With SNAP the keys are first calibrated with a weight pattern available for high, medium or low inertia. Once this pattern installed it can be combined with any curve of hamerweight (SW) as long as you respect the advised SW/Ratio match.
Below an example of a medium inertia choice for key C40. Installed with two different hammerweight (8,6 and 10,5 gr) yet the BW and FW are identical. The correct SW/Ratio match in both equitations results here in the same inertia comfort in touch.
If your choice of hammers is too heavy in relation with the existing ratio you wil notice your BW is too high. The solution is either to reduce the hammerweight or adjust the existing ratio in order to get your correct R/SW match and desired BW. Obviously the software designed by the PTDaE gives you more insight into these relations. For this adjustment you can use the OBW, or you can design a standard for capstan and wippen heel location and wippen heel height. The WNG wippens with their choice of movable heels are a very suitable option here.
At special custommers request it is possible to change in a fast way your designed ratio/inertia: you simply replace the OBW with another size, dip or blow need to be adjusted of course.
I know some brands started recently to control their hammers for smoother weight decrease and this is certainly felt in a better eveness of touch. Unfortunatily in production the importance of a specific transmission ratio on a specific piano has not been taking in account yet. And the need to apply a controled dynamic touch has not been stimulated to much since pianists have an abbility to play on any not to bad piano without complaining too much.
That’s why you will find a diversity of inertia in a range of pianos of the same brand. This is one of the main reasons why they feel and sound different and not always for the best because their diversity is not designed on purpose but rather comes out of coincidence without awareness of the impact of inertia/ratio relation. Meanwhile pianists also developed an expertise to recognice an optimized touch. and I always notice that after some hours of practise on a PTD action they are surprised when discovering the new subtil possibilities in touch control.
Their technique transforms and they experience more connection with the sound they produce and, they fall in love with it. There is no doubt that the demand for PTD and SNAP will grow. I wonder which companies will be among the first to start SNAP in production, it will definitely change marketpositions and I’m curious what movement of sales volume this will generate.
A VISION AND A MISSION FOR PIANOBUILDERS AND TECHNICIANS

Today everybody can easely acces all

PTD information.

I specialy refer to the articles on Davids site and to Mario Igrecs excellent book ‘ Pianos Inside Out’ chapter 9
Recently someone associeted PTD with the term 'rocket science' despite the fact that the Stanwood method only uses simple mathematics, see-saw science. It is also thought installing a PTD is complicated although the procedure is quite simple and easy to learn. PTD is much more work I hear, not profitable, time is money. If you treat individual mechanics it is indeed labour intensive because they are so diverse. Each time you need to make an analysis first and make a specific design to execute exactly yes this takes time. But if you integrate SNAP into a production process in a well thought-out way it will work out faster because you can use a standard version. With SNAP you design the key calibration only once. Performing that standard works faster than traditional and with accurate results. For example, you don't need anymore to mesure manually over and over again the lead positions for each key. You can indicate the lead locations quite fast with a template calculated according to the Stanwood lead pattern which, I quote US Patent #5585582 °1994, create a smooth linear progression of key front in weights, providing a more uniform ‘feel’ to the piano keys when played by a pianist. A complete standard SNAP design is also made only once in production. Adjusting SW indeed require additional time, but again you can reduce this in factory by applying a technical standard procedure. With SNAP you probably will reach the same total   time efficiency. For example, an adjusted SW curve usually speeds up the final intonation this compensates for supplementary SW labour.
I n any way, the huge improvement of touch quality will compensate for any extra work. With a well-balanced mechanism, the pianist can make more efficient contact with the sound of his piano. A more subtle touch creates a greater musical development in phrasing and interpretation. This SNAP specific concrete playing quality is at the end the valuable asset in sale and marketing. Once again, we know how to analyse piano actions more thoroughly, we know exactly how to improve them. Let us apply this knowledge now and work together on a high quality level for the the pianist, his music, his future.
C o n c l u s i o n Inovations usually take time to settle in society. An initial conservative reluctance to embrace the new is normal and relies on various belief structures usually based on a lack of information and practical knowhow.
Up to now in factories the concept BALANCE WEIGHT is not in use for keyweight calibration: traditionally the amount and position of lead in the front of the key is determined by mesuring the downweight (DW) and adjusting it to around 50 gr with a check for sufficiently upwight (UW). The idee behind this procedure is getting an even touch but regrettably you will create exactly the opposite.
With this DW procedure the effective weight of the front key (FW) is not determined and as a consequence the balance weight remains also an unknown parameter. And this BW is precisely the value you can consistently use to determine the dynamic touchweight.
Even in if you maintain an equal progression of hammer weight with this DW procedure the balance weight will not be equal because the down weight is the sum of the Balance weight + Friction and that friction is not explicitly measured per key. Note also the friction in the mechanism fluctuates with the ambient humidity changes.
The amount of force needed to move this 5.5 gr increases exponentially with the acceleration of the hammer.
Here a practical example of DW, FW and BW elaborated with the Stanwood equitation. BW + FW = (KR x WW) + (R x SW) At the front of the key you mesure a 10 gr friction resistance being the total of frictions on the balancepin, capstan, knuckle and axes. (UW - DW) / 2 = Friction The total weight to be balanced is 60 gr, being the weight of the hammer (10 gr x ratio 5) + the wippen (20gr x ratio 0.5) = totaal 60 gr. An ideal balance weight is 38 gr , so I adjust the weight of the key to 22 gr FW. BW 38 gr + FW 22 gr = (KR 0.5 x WW 20 gr) + (R 5.0 x SW 10 gr) 60 gr = 10 gr + 50 gr The downweight (DW) is now 38gr BW + 10 gr friction = 48 gr DW
for pianist and technicians We all keep learning with your comments and questions, thank you for your important participation.
Using SNAP in production you will start with the calibration of the keys making first a choice between one of the available Stanwood weight patterns. Next you choose the hammerweight regarding the power and tone you like for that particular piano model. I would like to mention that since a while Abel is manufacturing hammerheads with weightspecifications. When renovating the action with new hammers you don’t need to leadweight the keys again as you can order hammers with same weight specifications as the original.
Thank you for visiting !
More about BALANCEWEIGHT (BW) (UW+BW) / 2 = BW DW (downweight) - Friction = BW UW (upweight) + Friction = BW
BW = balanceweight FW= weight of the key at the front WW = wippen weight KR = key ratio (usually around 0.5) SW = hammer with shank weight
Danny Boddin
Below an example of a medium inertia choice for key C40. Installed with two different hammerweight (8,6 and 10,5 gr) yet the BW and FW are identical. The correct SW/Ratio match in both equitations results here in the same inertia comfort in touch.

PIANOSERVICE

BODDIN
Thank you for visiting !
David Stanwood also offers SALA . The S tanwood A djustable L everage A ction is a modification under the keyboard that allows you to manually change the fulcrum position under the key with multiple flexible ratio/dynamic enertion choices. SALA and the MBA are different. MBA, the MagneticBalanceAction by Hans Venlo only changes the BW by adjusting the magnets in the key. SALA changes the inertia in the touch by changing the ratio.
Danny Boddin
Danny Boddin
Join the ‘Precision Touch Design Platform’
for pianists and technicians We all keep learning with your comments and questions, thank you for your important participation.
 A VISION AND A MISSION FOR PIANOBUILDERS AND TECHNICIANS

Imagine working in production with a new standard for leadweighting the keys, reliable and predictable in dynamic touchweight. I belief this will be the future for piano actions.
Over the years David could compared numerous PTD analyses and also refered them to the pianists feedback. With this information he found out which touch plays with comfort and which don’t work out that good. The Stanwood equitation made it possible to know which hamerweight and ratio can be combined in order to get an acceptable dynamic inertia in the touch. The PTDAE has been teaching for ten years now and over 500 Precision Touch Designs have been installed in Europe.
Out of PTD David Stanwood developted recently his SNAP . The Stanwood new Action Protocol is primarily conceived to be used in factory since it is adapted with a standard for production. With SNAP the keys are first calibrated with a weight pattern available for high, medium or low inertia. Once this pattern installed it can be combined with any curve of hamerweight (SW) as long as you respect the advised SW/Ratio match.
Below an example of a medium inertia choice for key C40. Installed with two different hammerweight (8,6 and 10,5 gr) yet the BW and FW are identical. The correct SW/Ratio match in both equitations results here in the same inertia comfort in touch.
BW = balanceweight FW= weight of the key at the front WW = wippen weight KR = key ratio (usually around 0.5) SW = hammer with shank weight
If your choice of hammers is too heavy in relation with the existing ratio you wil notice your BW is too high. The solution is either to reduce the hammerweight or adjust the existing ratio in order to get your correct R/SW match and desired BW. Obviously the software designed by the PTDaE gives you more insight into these relations. For this adjustment you can use the OBW, or you can design a standard for capstan and wippen heel location and wippen heel height. The WNG wippens with their choice of movable heels are a very suitable option here.
Using SNAP in production you will start with the calibration of the keys making first a choice between one of the available Stanwood weight patterns. Next you choose the hammerweight regarding the power and tone you like for that particular piano model. I would like to mention that since a while Abel is manufacturing hammerheads with weightspecifications. When renovating the action with new hammers you don’t need to leadweight the keys again as you can order hammers with same weight specifications as the original.
At special custommers request it is possible to change in a fast way your designed ratio/inertia: you simply replace the OBW with another size, dip or blow need to be adjusted of course.
OBW available at Jahn
I know some brands started recently to control their hammers for smoother weight decrease and this is certainly felt in a better eveness of touch. Unfortunatily in production the importance of a specific transmission ratio on a specific piano has not been taking in account yet. And the need to apply a controled dynamic touch has not been stimulated to much since pianists have an abbility to play on any not to bad piano without complaining too much.
That’s why you will find a diversity of inertia in a range of pianos of the same brand. This is one of the main reasons why they feel and sound different and not always for the best because their diversity is not designed on purpose but rather comes out of coincidence without awareness of the impact of inertia/ratio relation. Meanwhile pianists also developed an expertise to recognice an optimized touch and I always notice that after some hours of practise on a PTD action they are surprised when discovering the new subtil possibilities in touch control.
Their technique transforms and they experience more connection with the sound they produce and, they fall in love with it. There is no doubt that the demand for PTD and SNAP will grow. I wonder which companies will be among the first to start SNAP in production, it will definitely change marketpositions and I’m curious what movement of sales volume this will generate.

Today everybody can easely acces all PTD information.

I specialy refer to the articles on Davids site and to Mario Igrecs excellent book ‘ Pianos Inside Out’ chapter 9
Here a practical example of DW, FW and BW elaborated with the Stanwood equitation. BW + FW = (KR x WW) + (R x SW) At the front of the key you mesure a 10 gr friction resistance being the total of frictions on the balancepin, capstan, knuckle and axes. (UW - DW) / 2 = Friction The total weight to be balanced is 60 gr, being the weight of the hammer (10 gr x ratio 5) + the wippen (20gr x ratio 0.5) = totaal 60 gr. An ideal balance weight is 38 gr , so I adjust the weight of the key to 22 gr FW. BW 38 gr + FW 22 gr = (KR 0.5 x WW 20 gr) + (R 5.0 x SW 10 g 60 gr = 10 gr + 50 gr The downweight (DW) is now 38gr BW + 10 gr friction = 48 gr DW
More about BALANCEWEIGHT (BW) (UW+BW) / 2 = BW DW (downweight) - Friction = BW UW (upweight) + Friction = BW
Up to now in factories the concept BALANCE WEIGHT is not in use for keyweight calibration: traditionally the amount and position of lead in the front of the key is determined by mesuring the downweight (DW) and adjusting it to around 50 gr with a check for sufficiently upwight (UW). The idee behind this procedure is getting an even touch but regrettably you will create exactly the opposite.
With this DW procedure the effective weight of the front key (FW) is not determined and as a consequence the balance weight remains also an unknown parameter. And this BW is precisely the value you can consistently use to determine the dynamic touchweight.
Even in if you maintain an equal progression of hammer weight with this DW procedure the balance weight will not be equal because the down weight is the sum of the Balance weight + Friction and that friction is not explicitly measured per key. Note also the friction in the mechanism fluctuates with the ambient humidity changes.
Also the procedure to calibrate the 88 keys in four or five different DW sections is not very efficient to make an equal BW. Indeed, in the bass, medium and discant friction differs, hence traditionally this different DW sections but the actual friction per key is not mesured here. And also the recommendations for the UW which are only specified by a +limit value number don’t not make sense. See Steinway example here with UW specified +19 for all sections. So this conservative procedure is clearly less precise. It’s so logic to use BW for keyweight calculation.
Friction does not affect the balance weight or the dynamic touchweight and is consequently not used in the Stanwood equation. BW   is   the   constant   value   PTD   uses   as   reference   to   determine   the frontweight (FW).
And again if you don't analyse and adjust the hammerweights primarily, you’ll never get an equal decreasing inertia in dynamic touch. You could assume that an error of one gram more or less in a hammer is negligible when balancing the touchweight, but with e.g. a transmission ratio of 5.5 you get 1 gr x 5.5 = 5.5 grams static weight difference.
The amount of force needed to move this 5.5 gr increases exponentially with the acceleration of the hammer.
Traditional downweight calibration compensates this 5,5 gr weight difference with the amount or position of lead in the frontpart of the key. This does not result in an equal decreasing leadweight pattern and creates additional irregularity in dynamic touch because the inertia of the key weight also contributes +/- 10% to the total dynamic touch weight.
C o n c l u s i o n Inovations usually take time to settle in society. An initial conservative reluctance to embrace the new is normal and relies on various belief structures usually based on a lack of information and practical knowhow.
Recently someone associeted PTD with the term 'rocket science' despite the fact that the Stanwood method only uses simple mathematics, see-saw science. It is also thought installing a PTD is complicated although the procedure is quite simple and easy to learn. PTD is much more work I hear, not profitable, time is money. If you treat individual mechanics it is indeed labour intensive because they are so diverse. Each time you need to make an analysis first and make a specific design to execute exactly yes this takes time. But if you integrate SNAP into a production process in a well thought-out way it will work out faster because you can use a standard version. With SNAP you design the key calibration only once. Performing that standard works faster than traditional and with accurate results. For example, you don't need anymore to mesure manually over and over again the lead positions for each key. You can indicate the lead locations quite fast with a template calculated according to the Stanwood lead pattern which, I quote US Patent #5585582 °1994, create a smooth linear progression of key front in weights, providing a more uniform ‘feel’ to the piano keys when played by a pianist. A complete standard SNAP design is also made only once in production. Adjusting SW indeed require additional time, but again you can reduce this in factory by applying a technical standard procedure. With SNAP you probably will reach the same total   time efficiency. For example, an adjusted SW curve usually speeds up the final intonation this compensates for supplementary SW labour.
01 05 2000 Danny Boddin
C40 with a BW + FW = ( WW x KR ) + ( SW x Ratio ) light hammer 8,6 gr : 37,96 + 22,8 = ( 16 x 0,5 ) + ( 8,6 x 6,6 ) correct SW/Ratio matches heavier hammer 10,5 gr : 37,90 + 22,8 = ( 16 x 0,5 ) + ( 10,5 x 5,4 )
I n any way, the huge improvement of touch quality will compensate for any extra work. With a well-balanced mechanism, the pianist can make more efficient contact with the sound of his piano. A more subtle touch creates a greater musical development in phrasing and interpretation. This SNAP specific concrete playing quality is at the end the valuable asset in sale and marketing. Once again, we know how to analyse piano actions more thoroughly, we know exactly how to improve them. Let us apply this knowledge now and work together on a high quality level for the the pianist, his music, his future.
+ 32 (0)475 43 38 43
thank you for visiting
BODDIN

PIANOSERVICE

Danny Boddin
BODDIN

PIANOSERVICE

Thank you for visiting !
Join the ‘Precision Touch Design Platform’
for pianists and technicians We all keep learning with your comments and questions, thank you for your important participation.
 A VISION AND A MISSION FOR PIANOBUILDERS AND TECHNICIANS

Imagine working in production with a new standard for leadweighting the keys, reliable and predictable in dynamic touchweight. I belief this will be the future for piano actions.
Over the years David could compared numerous PTD analyses and also refered them to the pianists feedback. With this information he found out which touch plays with comfort and which don’t work out that good. The Stanwood equitation made it possible to know which hamerweight and ratio can be combined in order to get an acceptable dynamic inertia in the touch. The PTDAE has been teaching for ten years now and over 500 Precision Touch Designs have been installed in Europe.
Out of PTD David Stanwood developted recently his SNAP . The Stanwood new Action Protocol is primarily conceived to be used in factory since it is adapted with a standard for production. With SNAP the keys are first calibrated with a weight pattern available for high, medium or low inertia. Once this pattern installed it can be combined with any curve of hamerweight (SW) as long as you respect the advised SW/Ratio match.
Below an example of a medium inertia choice for key C40. Installed with two different hammerweight (8,6 and 10,5 gr) yet the BW and FW are identical. The correct SW/Ratio match in both equitations results here in the same inertia comfort in touch.
BW = balanceweight FW= weight of the key at the front WW = wippen weight KR = key ratio (usually around 0.5) SW = hammer with shank weight
C40 with a BW + FW = ( WW x KR ) + ( SW x Ratio ) light hammer 8,6 gr : 37,96 + 22,8 = ( 16 x 0,5 ) + ( 8,6 x 6,6 ) correct SW/Ratio matches heavier hammer 10,5 gr : 37,90 + 22,8 = ( 16 x 0,5 ) + ( 10,5 x 5,4 )
If your choice of hammers is too heavy in relation with the existing ratio you wil notice your BW is too high. The solution is either to reduce the hammerweight or adjust the existing ratio in order to get your correct R/SW match and desired BW. Obviously the software designed by the PTDaE gives you more insight into these relations. For this adjustment you can use the OBW, or you can design a standard for capstan and wippen heel location and wippen heel height. The WNG wippens with their choice of movable heels are a very suitable option here.
Using SNAP in production you will start with the calibration of the keys making first a choice between one of the available Stanwood weight patterns. Next you choose the hammerweight regarding the power and tone you like for that particular piano model. I would like to mention that since a while Abel is manufacturing hammerheads with weightspecifications. When renovating the action with new hammers you don’t need to leadweight the keys again as you can order hammers with same weight specifications as the original.
At special custommers request it is possible to change in a fast way your designed ratio/inertia: you simply replace the OBW with another size, dip or blow need to be adjusted of course.
OBW available at Jahn
I know some brands started recently to control their hammers for smoother weight decrease and this is certainly felt in a better eveness of touch. Unfortunatily in production the importance of a specific transmission ratio on a specific piano has not been taking in account yet. And the need to apply a controled dynamic touch has not been stimulated to much since pianists have an abbility to play on any not to bad piano without complaining too much.
That’s why you will find a diversity of inertia in a range of pianos of the same brand. This is one of the main reasons why they feel and sound different and not always for the best because their diversity is not designed on purpose but rather comes out of coincidence without awareness of the impact of inertia/ratio relation. Meanwhile pianists also developed an expertise to recognice an optimized touch. and I always notice that after some hours of practise on a PTD action they are surprised when discovering the new subtil possibilities in touch control.
Their technique transforms and they experience more connection with the sound they produce and, they fall in love with it. There is no doubt that the demand for PTD and SNAP will grow. I wonder which companies will be among the first to start SNAP in production, it will definitely change marketpositions and I’m curious what movement of sales volume this will generate.

Today everybody can easely acces all PTD information.

I specialy refer to the articles on Davids site and to Mario Igrecs excellent book ‘ Pianos Inside Out’ chapter 9
Here a practical example of DW, FW and BW elaborated with the Stanwood equitation. BW + FW = (KR x WW) + (R x SW) At the front of the key you mesure a 10 gr friction resistance being the total of frictions on the balancepin, capstan, knuckle and axes. (UW - DW) / 2 = Friction The total weight to be balanced is 60 gr, being the weight of the hammer (10 gr x ratio 5) + the wippen (20gr x ratio 0.5) = totaal 60 gr. An ideal balance weight is 38 gr , so I adjust the weight of the key to 22 gr FW. BW 38 gr + FW 22 gr = (KR 0.5 x WW 20 gr) + (R 5.0 x SW 10 g 60 gr = 10 gr + 50 gr The downweight (DW) is now 38gr BW + 10 gr friction = 48 gr DW
More about BALANCEWEIGHT (BW) (UW+BW) / 2 = BW DW (downweight) - Friction = BW UW (upweight) + Friction = BW
Up to now in factories the concept BALANCE WEIGHT is not in use for keyweight calibration: traditionally the amount and position of lead in the front of the key is determined by mesuring the downweight (DW) and adjusting it to around 50 gr with a check for sufficiently upwight (UW). The idee behind this procedure is getting an even touch but regrettably you will create exactly the opposite.
With this DW procedure the effective weight of the front key (FW) is not determined and as a consequence the balance weight remains also an unknown parameter. And this BW is precisely the value you can consistently use to determine the dynamic touchweight.
Even in if you maintain an equal progression of hammer weight with this DW procedure the balance weight will not be equal because the down weight is the sum of the Balance weight + Friction and that friction is not explicitly measured per key. Note also the friction in the mechanism fluctuates with the ambient humidity changes.
Also the procedure to calibrate the 88 keys in four or five different DW sections is not very efficient to make an equal BW. Indeed, in the bass, medium and discant friction differs, hence traditionally this different DW sections but the actual friction per key is not mesured here. And also the recommendations for the UW which are only specified by a +limit value number don’t not make sense. See Steinway example here with UW specified +19 for all sections. So this conservative procedure is clearly less precise. It’s so logic to use BW for keyweight calculation.
Friction does not affect the balance weight or the dynamic touchweight and is consequently not used in the Stanwood equation. BW   is   the   constant   value   PTD   uses   as   reference   to determine the frontweight (FW).
And again if you don't analyse and adjust the hammerweights primarily, you’ll never get an equal decreasing inertia in dynamic touch. You could assume that an error of one gram more or less in a hammer is negligible when balancing the touchweight, but with e.g. a transmission ratio of 5.5 you get 1 gr x 5.5 = 5.5 grams static weight difference.
The amount of force needed to move this 5.5 gr increases exponentially with the acceleration of the hammer.
Traditional downweight calibration compensates this 5,5 gr weight difference with the amount or position of lead in the frontpart of the key. This does not result in an equal decreasing leadweight pattern and creates additional irregularity in dynamic touch because the inertia of the key weight also contributes +/- 10% to the total dynamic touch weight.
C o n c l u s i o n Inovations usually take time to settle in society. An initial conservative reluctance to embrace the new is normal and relies on various belief structures usually based on a lack of information and practical knowhow.
Recently someone associeted PTD with the term 'rocket science' despite the fact that the Stanwood method only uses simple mathematics, see-saw science. It is also thought installing a PTD is complicated although the procedure is quite simple and easy to learn. PTD is much more work I hear, not profitable, time is money. If you treat individual mechanics it is indeed labour intensive because they are so diverse. Each time you need to make an analysis first and make a specific design to execute exactly yes this takes time. But if you integrate SNAP into a production process in a well thought-out way it will work out faster because you can use a standard version. With SNAP you design the key calibration only once. Performing that standard works faster than traditional and with accurate results. For example, you don't need anymore to mesure manually over and over again the lead positions for each key. You can indicate the lead locations quite fast with a template calculated according to the Stanwood lead pattern which, I quote US Patent #5585582 °1994, create a smooth linear progression of key front in weights, providing a more uniform ‘feel’ to the piano keys when played by a pianist. A complete standard SNAP design is also made only once in production. Adjusting SW indeed require additional time, but again you can reduce this in factory by applying a technical standard procedure. With SNAP you probably will reach the same total   time efficiency. For example, an adjusted SW curve usually speeds up the final intonation this compensates for supplementary SW labour.
I n any way, the huge improvement of touch quality will compensate for any extra work. With a well- balanced mechanism, the pianist can make more efficient contact with the sound of his piano. A more subtle touch creates a greater musical development in phrasing and interpretation. This SNAP specific concrete playing quality is at the end the valuable asset in sale and marketing. Once again, we know how to analyse piano actions more thoroughly, we know exactly how to improve them. Let us apply this knowledge now and work together on a high quality level for the the pianist, his music, his future.
01 05 2000 Danny Boddin
+ 32 (0)475 43 38 43
David Stanwood also offers SALA . The S tanwood A djustable L everage A ction is a modification under the keyboard that allows you to manually change the fulcrum position under the key with multiple flexible ratio/dynamic enertion choices. SALA and the MBA are different. MBA, the MagneticBalanceAction by Hans Venlo only changes the BW by adjusting the magnets in the key. SALA changes the inertia in the touch by changing the ratio.
Danny Boddin