On Thu, 27 Jul 1995 rhohf@eagle.idcnet.com wrote:
... there are many things (perhaps including piano actions) which simply
have too many variables to isolate and measure them. Thus, the
scientific method is more
> useful for some things than for others. Attempts to employ the scientific
> method improperly result in descriptions of >special cases< with little or no
> general application. It may be that every piano ever made is its own special
> case. Solving action problems to the extent of producing consistent and
> predictable results may require seeing through the mounds of data to a deeper
> level of understanding.
Hear hear. When I began action regulation, I was instructed to set
certian measurements and distances. This, for the most part was not to be
changed or altered. Later, I worked with technicians who thought my
approach was too narrow minded, and the action regulations that they
performed were, for the most part, individually tailored to the piano.
The point that I am attempting to underscore here is that despite
rigorous analysis of action movement and ratios, from piano to piano, the
results will be inconsistent, due to the complex interrelationship of all
variables.
Does this mean that we should throw up our hands and write off
any attempts to create a broad based system to describe hammer to string
relationships? Of course not! Remember, however, the technician cannot be
slaved to charts and numbers. Setting a point of regulation to a spec.
because the manual says so is not working to understand the instrument. I
applaud Mr. Stanwood's approach as a practical system, something that can
be used by technicians (let someone else do the math...), and wait with
interest to see it published. (Am I waiting for more charts and numbers?
Only if they are useful...)
Rob Kiddell, C.A.P.T.
Edmonton, AB. Canada
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC