Stanwood Standards

[Farrell]

Bill Ballard wrote:

> > David Love is right: perfectly playable actions can be put together
> > without such compelling obsessions. But just like any car salesman
> > can make money during good times, anybody can get an action to work
> > which has a reasonable key ratio and hammer weights. It wouldn't even
> > require knowing that these aspect were working in your favor. It's
> > there outliers (statistically) where the metrology really shines.
> > Without it one is really in the dark.
> 
> > The metrology really is a language, and sometimes I think that Ric,
> > David and I here on the list are like three grizzled old farts on a
> > park bench muttering away in a language which no one else knows or
> > understands. But whenever someone else on this list says, "I leaded
> > the keys for 50g DW, and the pianist now says its heavier", I wish
> > there were more of us. DW. What's that? That plus UW are the two
> > knobs on the front door. The good stuff is inside.
> 
> > Bill Ballard RPT

Keep the banter going! Even though some of use don't jump right into the foray, doesn't mean there is no interest. I am familiar with some of the words of this language. I have simply not used Stanwood methodology enough to be fluent with the language - I need to keep looking up many words - but I recognize the utility of it all and incorporate it into every action rebuild I have ever done. Both of them.

Terry Farrell