<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1595" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I, like Fred Sturm, have found that many of my clients prefer the more positive feel of the jack further under. I certainly never have cheating problems when adjusting that way unless there are flange problems. I might be tempted to try and eek out a little more speed of repetition if someone complained about it being slow but then there are so many other issues available I would rather address them first. So I'm saying being on the edge of cheating may not be the best position even for a concert regulation. I usually do as Fred with a taut thread line after setting end samples, then I check individually for anomalies. That yields a more consistent result than trying to do 88 individually, at least for me with my eyes and usual concentration level. I do like the "Garlick method" offered by Michael for a "quickie" though.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Paul is right, we get such good food for thought at this trough. Lucky us.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Chris Solliday</FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>