Key Ratios

[David Love]

It's just a different way of expressing the same relationship.  A
traditional 2:1 relationship will be represented as .50 in the Stanwood
method.  This makes it useful to use in a mathematical formula.  A .54 key
ratio would be the equivalent in the old style of 1.85:1 and is represented
fractionally as 1/1.85.  The method of taking the measurements in the
Stanwood system makes it a bit easier to be accurate.

David Love


----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillip Ford" <fordpiano@earthlink.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: August 14, 2002 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: Key Ratios


Joe,
I thought I was using the notation used by Stanwood.  See Stanwood, 'New
Touchweight Metrology', PTG Journal, June 1996.  I'd be glad to participate
in
a discussion of what 'proper' notation should be, set this down in an
official
place like the Journal, and agree to adhere to that.  But until that
discussion takes place, since David Stanwood has done a lot of high profile
work in this area, and many are aware of his work, I consider his
terminology
and notation style the de facto standard.

Phil Ford


On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:29:31 -0700 Joseph Garrett <joegarrett@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> All,
> It would be nice if, when you are talking about
> key ratios, that the proper
> notation were used. I.E. .51:1 or 2:1, etc.
> After all, there are those on
> this list that don't have a clue what the heck
> you are referring to
> Just a thought.
> Regards,
> Joe Garrett, RPT, (Oregon)
>
> I'm never lost, because everyone is telling me
> where to go.
>
>