<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: [CAUT] Capstan Repositioning</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY BGCOLOR="#D8D0C8"> Cy,     I didn’t mean there was a benefit to unequal dip through the piano, just that if a piano is built that way, (i.e capstan location, string height, plate location, stack height/location,  parts, action spread, key height, and other geometry issues ruling it), Is it worth changing?  If the piano is not receiving complaints, I certainly wouldn’t change it.  I would never change dip from a factory spec without a geometry reason, and then I would likely compromise other aspects of the regulation to spread the deviation from normal around a bit to avoid making the piano “strange”.  I would probably experiment a little to see what works.    All these geometry things bear on one another, so when one is off, chances are other things are off as well.   Definitely some other things are off, if the piano regulates nicely in spite of one thing being off spec.       I’ve asked pianists about how they feel about dip.  The general comments I recall were “it allows one to get a little deeper into the keys”, “Allows more control” , “ Contributes to a clumsier and slower feel”.  As a pianist, I agree with those comments.  One size doesn’t fit all pianists, and all pianos, especially where geometry, string height, etc vary quite a bit, even within a piano.    Shallow dip allows faster playing in runs, scales, arpeggios, and complex figurations.  A high percentage of these in most classical music is in the upper half of the keyboard, with the exception of Beethoven.  (He sometimes puts heavy fast dense figurations in the bass.)  Fortepianos are easy to play those on, but the modern ones tend to be heavy, deep and slow.  Tone is mud too.   Deeper dip probably would not be noticed when playing an octave or single supporting bass line.  It would give a sense of more power which might not be a bad thing.   Whatever changes there are through a piano, they must be tapered. -Mike       Cy,     From talking to pianists, deeper keydip has pros and cons.   One size doesn’t fit all pianists, all music, and definitely not all pianos.  Deeper dip seems clumsier and slower, but also allows more control, an illusion of deeper tone, and more power.  I do not advocate changing regulation specs, except where the piano requires it by geometry, string height etc.  Certainly regulation and geometry issues bear on one another, so that any change to one will cause changes in others.    My only intent was to point out that there is a positive side to this piano’s set up.  There may be an intentional reason why the capstans position varies from one end to the other.  If the piano seems normal, and is not complained about, I would avoid changing it.  Any deviation from normal regulation specs should be tapered so there is a gradual change progressing up the scale.   Geometry and string height often varies within the piano so we must regulate accordingly and fudge or compromise a few things to hide these and make an even and normal feel.   -Mike       On 5/3/06 5:29 PM, "Cy Shuster" <cy@shusterpiano.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>Mike,   What benefit would you get from more dip in the bass?   Or perhaps I should ask, in tapering dip from bass to treble, in which octave would you have "normal" dip (.390)?   --Cy-- shusterpiano.com <BLOCKQUOTE> ----- Original Message -----   From:  central <a href="mailto:jorge1ml@mail.cmich.edu"><mailto:jorge1ml@mail.cmich.edu></a>     To: College and University Technicians <a href="mailto:caut@ptg.org"><mailto:caut@ptg.org></a>     Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 11:02  AM   Subject: Re: [CAUT] Capstan  Repositioning   Ditto!     I also would add  that a little deeper dip in the bass tapering to shallow is probably not a bad  thing from a pianists point of view.  In most music, octaves or single  tones are used in the bass where dip is not such a factor.  In the high  treble, runs, scales, complex figurations are more common, where dip is more a  factor. -Mike </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BODY> </HTML>