> 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 Hi Frank, I ought to be in enough trouble for anyone by now, but since you haven't gotten a flood of conventional wisdom so far, I'll comment. I've read the posts on list about optimal strike point deviating through the killer octave, and wondered why. I'm told it's a casting shrinkage thing, where the Vbar isn't where it should be. Whatever. With conventional rebuilds, I found it was indeed necessary to adjust the strike line through the killer octave for a more optimal tone. But that's changed. Since I started building rib supported boards, I've found that the tone differences with a slight strike point shift through the killer octave were so slight (if detectable at all) as to not be worth the trouble. I've also found that the C-8 strike point gets a lot wider and more forgiving. I have no idea why this happens this way, but I like it, and am becoming more convinced with each piano that most of the problems associated with the top half of the scale are directly related to traditional soundboard construction methods using high panel compression for crown support. Sorry, I know that doesn't help, but that's what I've got. I enjoyed your Grand Rapids class. Thanks. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC