The Hidden World of the Piano Action

The cover image was taken by the author.

In my humble opinion, the best way to unwind after a long, arduous day is to pour out all your stresses onto the beautiful white and black keys of a grand piano.

(Of course, that’s a little hard to do if you’ve never learned to play… I digress, though.)

During my time at Georgia Tech, I’d find myself sitting at the piano located in the West Village Dining Hall almost every night – and while I wouldn’t say the piano there is especially well maintained, it still produces a sound that’s pleasant to my ears. In the end, isn’t that all that matters?

“Enough with the preamble! What’s the point of all these ramblings?” You might be asking. Well, to answer that hypothetical question – I often think about the acoustics of a piano. That, of course, naturally leads to how it works… and believe it or not, there happens to be a surprising amount of physics under the (metaphorical and literal) hood of the instrument!

The story of the piano begins with the clavichord, developed in the 14th century. The clavichord action was as simple as could be – a key lever with a hammer on one end. After the key is depressed, the hammer is immediately lifted until it hits the string, remaining in contact until the key is released (Russo & Robles-Linares, 2020).

Figure 2 Source: (Russo & Robles-Linares, 2020)

While this action enables volume dynamics, vibrato, and control over the attack and duration of one’s sounds, there remained one large problem: the string would be damped for as long as the key was held down.

The harpsichord attempted to address this issue, while sacrificing some of the finer benefits of the clavichord.

For its action, when a key is pressed, the jack is lifted along with the plectrum and damper, the latter immediately releasing the string. Right after, the plectrum hits the string, generating sound. At some point, the jack meets a rail up above that stops its motion, allowing the string to resonate for as long as the key is held down. When the key is finally let go, the jack falls such that its plectrum does not hit the string a second time (Russo & Robles-Linares, 2020).

Figure 3 Source: (Russo & Robles-Linares, 2020)

Even though this solves the major issue with the clavichord, the harpsichord, in turn, has almost no volume dynamics, nor can vibrato be performed with it!

That takes us to the mid-17th century, where Bartolomeo Cristofori would invent what was known as the fortepiano – named because of its ability to play forte (loud) and piano (soft).

The action of the fortepiano is far more complex than both the clavichord and the harpsichord. When the key is first pressed, it lifts an intermediate lever; a damper connected to that lever releases the string. After a small period of time, the jack on the intermediate lever pushes the hammer up. The hammer lifts off the jack halfway to the string and uses its existing momentum to hit the string.

If the key was immediately released, the string is immediately damped, making a staccato (short) sound, as the mechanism returns to its resting position. If the key is held down, the string is undamped and free to resonate; the hammer falls back down onto the jack. After the key is released, the hammer returns to its resting position and the string is damped, muting the sound (Russo & Robles-Linares, 2020).

Figure 4 Source: (Russo & Robles-Linares, 2020)

In essence, the fortepiano was the combination of the good of both the clavichord and harpsichord – dynamics and vibrato, along with volume and an ability to sustain sound. In many ways, the fortepiano is similar to the grand pianos of today, but with a few key differences…

Figure 5 Source: (Brent et al., 2011)

…Quite a lot of differences, in fact. From a first glance, this diagram seems far removed from the likes of the fortepiano, but most of the underlying theory remains the same.

To put it simply, the goal of the grand piano action is to let the hammer hit the string to create vibration – but, most importantly, it should be fast enough that it doesn’t damp the string. Efforts to reduce that time have resulted in the complex system seen in Figure 5… each part of that mechanism plays its own role in giving as much control to the pianist as possible (Brent et al., 2011).

Control is an important part of playing the piano, in my own experience. The difference between a grand piano and an electronic MIDI keyboard is like night and day. Even the smallest, involuntary actions when playing a grand result in minor yet noticeable changes – and the best of the best (which, unfortunately, doesn’t include me) are able to manipulate each and every facet of control given to them.

As we close the hood on the fascinating world of the piano action, I hope you’ve gained a proper appreciation for the instrument! The fact that we’ve been able to manufacture such a sleek design, fitting in all the complex mechanisms into such a small area, all while ensuring it works to perfection… it’s an engineering miracle, to be honest.

When I inevitably return to that piano in West Village, I’ll surely be thinking about the action that I’m invoking with every press.

Reference List

Brent, G. R., Yu, B., Grijalva, R., & Awtar, S. (2011). Characterizing the Feel of the Piano Action. Computer Music Journal, 35(1), 43–57. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41241706

Russo, M., & Robles-Linares, J. A.  (2020). A Brief History of Piano Action Mechanisms. Advances in Historical Studies, 09(05), 312–329. https://doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2020.95024

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.