Hi Folks, A customer of a customer, also a technician and piano dealer, has caused me to question just about everything I thought I knew about strike points. The one thing that I learned from studying other scales is that there is very little that is consistent about strike points, even among pianos of the same make. Quite often, it doesn't even make much sense from note to note on the same piano. I start at 1:8 ratio for Note 1, and 1:15 for Note 88. Although there is not much reason for exactly what happens in between, I use 1:8 throughout the bass, with a straight line decrease from the lowest tenor note to 88. It doesn't much matter what you call the strike point ratio at Note 88. It's difficult to acurately measure such a short distance. Besides, the optimal strike point will be located by moving the action in and out slightly, whether you call or 1:15 or 1:17. There have been discussions on this list suggesting that many pianos could do better with a shorter strike point ratios in the killer octave, but this tech suggsets that I could do better with a longer strike point in just the "middle" octave, around Middle C. He suggests 1:8 at Middle C, siting model at that ratio for Middle C that have a "sweeter" sound, less "dark" and "nasal" that models with a shorter than 1:8 strike point. I like 1:8 for Note 1 because I think it sounds best. One reason it sounds best might be because it discourages the 8th partial. Especially in the case of wound strings, the 8th partial is dostorted enough by inharmonicity that it should be masked by a strike point at one of its nodes. I plan to assemble a piano without damper action or dag blocks, to allow temporary changes in strike point for selected notes. I'm thinking it might be better to use 1:8 up to Middle C, with a geometric progression to 88, yeilding slightly shorter strike points in the killer octave. All comments welcome. Frank Emerson
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC