Xn Changes (was: Need a Mason Expert)

[Bill Ballard]

on 9/29/97, Delwin D Fandrich, pianobuilders@olynet.com wrote:
>My Dear Bill,
>
>Quickly! Sit down, have a sip of brandy, relax! That’s it, relax. Calmly
>now...there, feeling better? Ah, good...

I had to put on a musty Johnny Mathis album before the brandy took ahold completely. Thanx for the Rx.

>Perhaps it was the result of a simple mistake being made. Perhaps it was deliberate.
>Perhaps someone put on the wrong hammershanks. Perhaps the wrong wippens
>were used—I’ve seen Pratt-Read wippens cobbled onto Steinway frames and
>I’ve seen Steinway wippens on Baldwin frames. I saw one action with
>capstans that had been moved from one wrong location to another wrong
>location. Well, surely you get the idea...

Now I get the idea. I thought you might be refering to competent work , based on a theory of action design different from one's own. Yes I has seen examples of "inappropriate changes made to action geometry" in the much broader sense in which you meant it. Including a Trowbridge runt grand with a "wht'dya-paint-it-with-a-stick" refinishing, and discard (-such a deal, I'm tellingk you-) Steinway shanks & hammers mounted on a replacement hammer rail made from the edge lumber of a foam core closet door!

>How about you? Any mistakes in your closet? (Don’t answer that!)

Don't mind if I do. There was a ('85?)  Baldwin L on which I moved the caps towards the balance rail, at David Stanwood's direction. The caps were about 45% out from under the rep heel (as you know felt covered from to back, not in a dado). I called up the late Frank Stopa (of the earlier Pratt, Read &Co.)and asked him what trouble I could get in like this. Would the wear on the felt be accelerated because the area of the caps' thrust under the cushion was reduced by 45%. Would a flange screw loosening in the winter allow the cap to throw the loose rep backwards, loosening the fastener yet more and leaving even less of the cap under the heel? He didn't think so. It hasn't happened yet, but as you say, forever is a long time. And I've lifted a few WN&G let-off rails (less so now that Renner USA has changed its M&H jack.)

>As may be, I meant no criticism of David’s work. I used that
>illustration in response to his post because, based on his extensive
>work in that area, I thought he would understand it. 

Yours was a very apt analogy, between stringing a piano based of the spreadsheeting of  string dimension properties, and selecting action parts and assembling an action based on the spreadsheeting of action measurements. We could also include calculating a temperament and stretching of the octaves based on a four or five note sample, as is a standard service of ETDs.  ETD users will certainl;y vouch for the overall success of such calculations, and don't begrudge a little tweaking and second-guessing thereupon. I'm very happy with the actions I've re-hung using David's formulae. Rocket science it is not (based as it is on "static measurements and arthimetic, instead of high math and even higher physics), but frankly that makes it much more practical. 

I was concerned that your analogy might be breaking down when comparing the "rescaled-by-the-numbers" poiano which still sounds lousy (either because its resonance is a separate matter from the smoothness of its strings scale curves, or because the designer considered the rescaling the finish point , instead of a starting point from which to improve things by ear and experimentation), .....comparing this to an action whose mass and leverage have been properly "tuned", but which has yet to be successfully voiced.

So, after all that we've finally straightened out "inappropriate". 

Bill Ballard, RPT
New Hampshire Chapter, PTG

"Round here we don't talk unless we can improve in the silence."
    Ron Rude, local Public Radio Commentator.

P.S.
>Actually, didn't the mouse, windows and WYSIWYG all come out of Xerox's
>Palo Alto Research Lab? Yes, as a matter of fact, I think they did. 
 If Steve Jobs hadn't immediately recognized its value in the consumer marketplace (upon seeing it at PARC), I don't think Bill Gates would have ever had a clue.  (Win95=Mac84)

>Oh, yes, and PostScript was developed by Adobe.
Adobe Systems developed PostScript for the early Mac OS, because there sure as heckfire had no call for such a graphics language in DOS, nor  was DOS the GUI in which to implement it. 

>Now, I don't remember exactly who invented and developed the Laser
>printer, but it wasn't Apple. They just marketed the thing.
The arrival of such a rich language as PostScript for personal computers (mind you, the ones with the GUI to use it) required printers of much higher resolution than the preavailing dot-mtrix priners. The technology of xerox (make that a capitl "X" if you'ld like) printing was adpated to be computer-driven, and specifically PostScript driven. In those early days, 300dpi was top dog, as was the 300bd modem. Out of respect for the list, I'll do a little fact checking on this last point.

Of course all of this is anceint history (as many people would have you believe the Mac is) But I digress.