Isaac OLEG wrote: > This is a very interesting discussion. For sure the study of David > Stanwood deserve a lot of merit and respect. If this study where not > done, we would not have third wonderful weight methodology and > approach. > I'm sure most everyone agrees in this :) > > Having changed the hammers on mine, I had moved the whippen rail to a > lower ratio, while using "copies hammer" that where on the medium/high > range. I am sure this has to do with language barrier issues, but I dont think we really move the whippen << rail >> per se to deal with ratio. Moving the whippen rail is to adjust for the best possible spread relative to two lines of centers. Personally I place priority on making sure the spread is such that with the hammer at the desired blow distance, the jack is barely on the B+ side of perpendicular to the hammer shank when properly regulated to the knuckle. Actually, this has more then once shed light on a problem with capstan placement. What exactly do you mean by "moved the whippen rail to a lower ratio" ? > > I read the thread with much interest, thanks for that exchange. > > Best Regards. > > Isaac OLEG . Z > > -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC