David Skolnik wrote: > At 09:54 AM 12/25/2008, you wrote: > >> The implication being, naturally, that the the only reason to try to >> improve a process is being incapable of doing it the archaic way. >> Ron N > > To quote a highly esteemed source, from a previous thread, other list: >> I didn't say anything to even remotely suggest that. No, you didn't, John did. > If you were called upon to do a fine regulation of existing dampers, > would you first pull the tray and install capstans? Stupid question. If you had to regulate a system with capstans, would you pull the tray and remove them? That's two stupid questions. Now what, are we done with that crap? >Well, would anyone > else, other than you? Other than me? Not so esteemed at all, it seems. >All I said was that, as I interpreted John's > comments, one of his points was that people did develop the skills to do > fine regulating with the 'archaic' system. I thought you said in your last message that John doesn't need anyone to speak for him. I must have that wrong too. >As to whether there are, in > fact, any advantages to that system, I'll forego comment until I've > given it more thought, or someone like yourself suggests some, but, just > to refresh my > memory: what, again, are the regulating procedures that are supplanted > by the presence of these capstans? Certainly, all the work leading up > to this phase remains unchanged. That's been addressed. Capstans are for the final pedal lift timing. Until you've regulated a set of dampers with capstans, further speculation on your part is mostly meaningless. If you've tried it and liked it, or didn't, so be it. That's your call. If you haven't tried it, you're guessing. The key concept is, as you just said, "whether there are, in fact, any advantages to that system". If you're interested in facts, please find out by experience. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC