Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum David Stanwood Patent (SALA)

"Stuck in the past" is not the only factor hindering adoption. There are substantial issues with basic physics in implementing that approach that give people pause, as well. The current state of action touch design is similar to astronomy in the middle ages. There is much to be learned and techniques to be perfected.

I don't see manufacturers stuck in the past at all.

Manufacturing faces certain challenges that, unless you are there in the highest levels of that business, you can not fully appreciate.

The manufacturers I am familiar with are very proactive if there is something they find that needs to be done.

Leaving aside the issue of tunnel vision, there is no reason for any manufacturer to license the precision touch design. It's a weak patent, and there are many ways for a manufacturer to achieve the identical results without infringement.

As for the SALA patent, the product may be so expensive that most pianos would be noncompetitive in their market segment if the cost of the SALA were added. I haven't really perused the patent, but there may be ways around it as well.

I've played the SALA prototype. It is "interesting" and certainly required some remarkable ingenuity to design and construct. However, it's actual function is to increase or decrease the key velocity required to achieve a given hammer velocity -- and without compensating for the inherent mis-match between key and hammer travel travel that is necessarily introduced. Whether there is any living pianist on the planet who would find that worthwhile is the question at this point. It might serve as a test bed for action designers to gain valid empirical data about action ratios . . .

Unfortunately, its development seems to emerge from the widespread failure to understand that the piano action is about velocity, not weight.

The history of piano design is littered with patents for various features that were never implemented -- either because of some fatal flaw that the inventor was blind to but others were not or from failure to connect with the public in a way that created market demand. With the passage of time, we will see how this ingenious invention fares in the real world.

I agree with Roy, there are a lot of ways to accomplish the desired results without infringing on Davids patent.

Anyone who has read Davids compilation will realize that the entire beginning reinforces the fundamentals of basic design, friction and regulation, the documenting of and the perspective of those numbers.

Kieth, I don't agree that Davids work is driven by ignorance as you state. Davids new design could, let's say, address the key ratio difference between an average Baldwin Grand and the Current Mason and Hamlin. Both highly regarded actions and neither equated with some misunderstanding of velocity vs weight.

Often I am good at not being clear.

Of course, I have no way to know what David Stanwood does or does not know -- and I shouldn't have written in a way that implies I do. Thanks for letting me clarify that. In any event-- regardless of the deficiencies in the current state of action touch modification, he certainly is to be applauded for popularizing a valid approach to measure and control friction in piano actions. His writings have certainly been helpful to me.

However, the general fact is that we are currently taking static measurements of weight -- even though that is largely irrelevant to the feel of an action in use. We are currently not able to take direct velocity measurements -- which does directly have to do with what the action feels like in use. Because we are measuring what we can measure -- instead of what should be measured -- actions are generally conceived of and treated as balance devices rather than velocity devices.

My suggestion is that the effect of the invention to vary the rate of key velocity to achieve a given hammer velocity was not well understood and was consistent with the general treatment and "knowledge" of action touch issues.

I don't see any deficiencies in the current state of action touch modification.

Also, the difference between the, let's say, some typical Baldwin grands and the Current Mason and Hamlin Grand action design is exactly a realistic example of two greatly differing "velocity" examples.

Again both highly regarded actions and both very different.

The Baldwin, in the name if increased "velocity" has made some compromises. Those compromises don't work for everyone.

Weight is only one of several measurements needed to evaluate how an action will meet the needs of a particular client. Competent work includes all the considerations.

You are correct that static balance is not as important as moment of inertia in determining action feel. The contribution of the action to a piano's sound is principally affected by the hammer's impact velocity, hammer mass, the hammer's nonlinear spring constant, and the hammer's hysteresis--other things (such as scale design) being equal. The force required by the pianist to accelerate the hammer to some velocity is principally determined by the action's moment of inertia as reflected back to the pianist's finger. Hammer mass and action ratio are the principal determinants of this moment of inertia.

A typical and practical challenge would be rebuilding a Baldwin Grand Action. The 1951 Model F I have in my shop right now has a key ratio of 1.75:1 and six 1/2" leads in the entire bass section. Middle C has four 1/2 inch leads and so forth.

Down weight after regulation and friction work still was still averaging 56g.

Now, one might say the actions resulting higher ratio, is desirable. The general reaction to this piano is that it is somewhat heavier to play.

Compare this to the older G7's action I just did. Key ration there was 2.05:1. Even after the heavier hammers, there were only two 1/2" leads and one 3/8" leads in the bass and tapering off towards the treble.

The Baldwin key ratio at 1.75:1 epitomizes the challenge faced in rebuilding to suit the needs of the client. The general wish at times here is that we could move the balance rail, change the key ratio and remove a little lead.

The overall action ratio in the Baldwin is higher than in the Yamaha. Inertia in the Baldwin's key is also higher.

Many very well known and regarded makers use the 2:1 key ratio. This results in lower overall action ratios and no one is complaining about loss of velocity. It also allows for less lead in the keys. This lower inertia is something pianists are finding desirable.

I will admit, there is the discussion that a higher action ratio in conjunction with a lighter hammer yields a more controllable dynamic range for the pianist. This does rely on the pianist having had the training and technique to properly exploits this. These same pianists, due to proper training, are able to generate more velocity in general on any piano.

Davids new patent could be considered a natural "next step" when one has wrestled the the key ratio problem for many years. I am not championing his cause, just pointing out the interesting idea that it is.

It is my opinion that good belly work and scale design yields far greater controllable dynamic range than slight differences in action ratio.

(Text highlighted by me.)

Perhaps the prototype did not compensate, but such compensation is definitely covered in the patent: the key dip is changed by means of a "Compensation Angle", e.g. a modification to the underside of the keys (numbered item 100 in Fig. 9) or to the top surface of the balance rail.

I don’t yawn either when I read of developments such as this. As you say, it is possible to build on the traditional concepts of piano design. And this applies to action design as well as the acoustical design of the instrument. Personally, I find this invention intriguing. I’ve not been able to spend much time studying it as yet, but I hope to in the future.

Will it ever become a mainstream feature? Who knows? There is a long road between invention and production. It will have to be life-tested and run through the wringer of the real world of piano abuse. But this will probably be the easiest part of the journey.

The more formidable task will be convincing manufacturers that they need it. The piano industry is not like most others; design evolution comes slowly and then only as a last resort. Where other industries are constantly looking for ways to evolve their products and come up with new ideas and new features—anything—to entice current owners back into the showrooms, the piano industry seems content with the one-shot sale. Keep making the same thing year after year, decade after decade, century after century and depend almost entirely on the first-time buyer for its existence.

Of course, at $10,000 this mechanism will have a very limited audience. But in production I don’t see it costing more than a few hundred to build. If that. I could be wrong; as I say, I’ve had very limited exposure to the mechanism but it doesn’t seem all that complex if done in production quantities on decent machinery. But we’re taking about an industry that finds it acceptable to use hardboard with a printed paper overlay instead of plywood as a structural backpanel because it saves about $0.47 per piano.

ddf

I would be interested to know how much increased wear the SALA mechanism puts onto the balance rail punchings, because every time it is adjusted, the levers that carry the keys are moved across the punchings. Balance rail punchings being delicate as they are...

This is the kind of thing only time (and life-testing) will determine.

ddf

I was able to see, (but not play) a piano with this in it at the PTG Convention. I am not a great pianist by any means, but watched some other technicians who were higher level pianists (higher than me at least) play, and it was interesting to see how they reacted to different settings. One gentleman felt that the piano set on its lightest ratio was still "too light", but when the ratio was increased, aka the touch weight actually went up, the better response to his touch made the piano feel lighter, at least to him. It seems that for high level pianists, this would really allow them to have a completely custom feel for their piano.

The action was being used to demonstrate action rebuilding techniques during the convention, I think, as the piano was privately owned by a customer of Kent Swafford's. It was an incredible Steinway D, rebuilt by Ron Nossaman. I thought it was perhaps the best sounding piano at the convention, though it never was in the exhibit hall, but in classrooms being used for demonstrations.

The piano was one of the most impressive I've ever seen.

I played it. My brother, a pianist/music professor/tuner played it and I heard several other folk playing it. Sound quality, dynamic range . . . . WOW!!

The SALA seemed a bit strange. Not sure if it really accomplishes anything useful.

I played the piano quite a bit - the SALA definitely has a dramatic effect on the touch. A small flat knob on the front of the keyframe makes the adjustment. The bass can be adjusted differently then the treble so that you can taper the touch if you like. A little scale on the keyframe tells you what the setting is: 1-5, 5 being the heaviest. My own preference was for the lightest setting possible.

Thanks to Kent Swafford, David Andersen, and David Stanwood for bringing this interesting new instrument to the conference. Being able chat with these guys face to face is always a privilege and a pleasure. By the way the piano was brought over from University of Missouri- Kansas City.

Wonderful instrument.

Not a universal assessment -- neither from the people at the convention that tried it nor, I understand, from the pianists at the venue where it is located. Certainly from the standpoint of basic physics, a given output velocity will always require the same energy input, no matter how it is sliced and diced.

Perhaps one reason for the discrepancy in perception has to do with the existence of unaccounted variables that are not detected in what are currently standard methods of action analysis. Some people may be sensitive to other variables that are being manipulated while others may not be.

Kieth,

Perhaps you would be willing to generously elaborate on your statement, which, by itself, is nothing more than a vague assertion that you yourself don't see the value.

Your opposing technical statements are rather sophomoric and more "salesman like".

Manufacturers use differing key ratios to accomplish their feel in their actions. The public definitely demonstrates their preference.

If your statement was true, then there would be no point in making anything different. This would be supported by the public saying they felt no usable differences between various manufacturers actions.

So? Bicycles that have more than one gear ratio are still usually prefered.

"Experience always replaces belief."

So---if you haven't put your hands on a SALA-equipped piano, please refrain from speculative fantasy.

I have seen over two dozen high-level players react to the SALA device in person. In each case there was the same reaction: "wow."

On last Wednesday, in Los Angeles, one of the most famous classical artists in the world played my SALA-fied Steinway D. He came from China to do two performances at the Hollywood Bowl, and he used my piano to record a PSA for the World Wildlife Fund.

He approved of the piano's tone and touch BEFORE the SALA device was shown to him. After he was shown it, he requested it to be set "lighter."
After it was set on the lightest setting, he started playing, smiled, and played all the way through his arrangement of "Ave Maria---" an eight-minute private concert for the technician (who was, understandably, choking back sobs a portion of that time.)

When he was done, he looked up, beaming, and said "Wow. Can this be done to any piano?"

Earlier in the session, in talking with the technician, the artist had said that differences in the touch of the actions he performed on were "the bane of my existence." Is there a need, or a desire, for something like SALA for this artist?

Yes. Everything we do as techs is for the player, for the artist. Mr. Stanwood and I have repeatedly seen artists get truly excited over the possibility of customizing piano touch in real time, and that is our real motivation.

Regarding price: there is a massive work load to create a custom SALA device and then install it in an excellent and custom way. All the parts of SALA are the finest available, either manufactured or custom. We are just beginning; the market will determine the eventual price; trust me when I say
the effort involved in producing the final installed product is considerable.

A huge thank-you to Kent Swofford, who co-rebuilt the D in Kansas City
(with Ron Nossaman) and installed the SALA device in it with mentoring and support form Mr. Stanwood. This instrument is the performance piano
for the UMKC Conservatory of Music. The leadership there, and Mr. Swofford, were fine with the installed price of SALA; there was no price pushback. They saw value.....

Full disclosure: I am a partner with Mr. Stanwood in SALA Pianos, Inc.