Stanwood Standards, was Upweight Maximums

[David Love]

I think this is a bit hyperbolic.  I don't hear many people spending much
energy trying to find reasons or prove anything negative about Stanwood's
system.  I hear, on occasion, a few people describing his system as
overkill, that you can get a perfectly fine functioning action without
going to such lengths.  And I think that they are right.  You can get an
action to perform well without the kind of detailed analysis and set up
that the Stanwood system calls for.  That may not appeal to the growing
number of type A's who have found his system to be just what the doctor
ordered, but there are other ways to skin a cat.  Personally, as a nearly
certified type A when it comes to piano work, I find Stanwood metrology a
good way to incorporate predictability into action design.  Whether or not
I agree with the specific designs that I have seen is a different matter
but one in which I wouldn't presume to discuss in terms of right and wrong.
But for now, I think David S. is safe from any replays of the trials in
Salem, and I hear far more compliments and interest in his ideas than I do
negative pronouncements.

David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Richard Brekne 
To: Pianotech
Sent: 4/8/2003 11:49:22 AM 
Subject: Stanwood Standards, was Upweight Maximums


  You know, now that you mention this particular point I'd like to get
something off my mind. Seems like there are a lot of folks who are spending
a good deal of energy trying to find reasons why the Stanwood system, or
his set of standards do not work, or are erroneous in relation to some
other perspectives, or why its worthless. Most of the criticisms I've seen
are really based on too little understanding of Stanwood Touchweight Design
to begin with.