To clarify a bit some of the basis for recent discussions: I do understand D. Stanwood's primary motivation is to provide a useful practical method for technicians to compare action characteristics. My own interests (still early days) are obviously somewhat different, and more theoretical, trying to understand the physical basis for piano tone. My primary consideration is to develop a realistic computer model of the energy transfer from hammer to string, so that different early pianos may be compared and the reasons they sound different understood. The constraint of *realism* in such a model requires a great attention to physical detail, which is obviously not required in a system of metrology such as D.S. is presenting. Another difference, apart from the motivation, is in the application points: D.S.'s work is based more toward the action end of the process, finishing at the hammer, whereas my work begins at the hammer and continues to the physics of tone production and string vibrations. There is an overlap here at the hammer itself. In spite of these differences I think there can be mutual benefit between our goals, whether theory or practice. I should mention that my background in this subject comes from *engineering* analysis, rather than physics. There is quite a difference here, since the engineering approach always maintains a link with reality and practice, whereas the physicist doesn't care about such things. Stephen Birkett (Fortepianos) Authentic Reproductions of 18th and 19th Century Pianos Waterloo, Ontario, Canada tel: 519-885-2228 fax: 519-763-4686
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC