J D wrote: >Forgive me for being sceptical, Ron [N], but this is sounding more >and more like a black art. First it is the Conklin formula, take it >or leave it, and then it is something similar which gives an >approximation -- in theory and is far from perfect but better than >nothing. > >I've been using nothing and a bit of common sense for many years and >the results sound a hell of a lot more reliable! Maybe, but I very much doubt it JD. Perhaps you should listen to what's been achieved by the 'Z factor school' before passing judgement. My 225 piano is one such instrument. The first commercial CDs will be available early next year. If you don't trust the digital medium, then check out the 'Testimonials' section of my website (the comments from the US PTG technicians came directly after they heard our piano at Reno). But then again, you probably wouldn't trust another technician's comments either. A few of us have been using 'Z' as a guide for some time. While it is sort of black art as you say, its considerably better than building something then seeing which way the wind blows. Furthermore, once you've had experience with it you may find it useful as a guidance tool for future projects, or if it turns out to be a waste of time as you suspect, then it'll give you real ammunition to tell us just how stupid we all are. Ron O -- ______________________________ Website: http://www.overspianos.com.au Email: mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au ______________________________
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC