<HTML>In a message dated 11/3/2002 11:32:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, davidlovepianos@earthlink.net writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> I am still strongly inclined toward setting up actions with great consideration given to determining an action ratio that will give proper regulation specs.  If there is a desire to use hammers whose weights fall outside of the boundaries that allow for a good match of weight to leverage, then other solutions, or compromises will have to be considered.  For 99% of the actions I do, that seems unnecessary.  For that other 1%, assist springs seem to be the most reasonable solution. David Love </BLOCKQUOTE>              David and all               I wholeheartedly agree. I find that when regulation parameters are compromised that should be a screaming indication that something is not right. I.E. Sample regulation notes are such a good indicator of potential problems with weight and inertia and deciding how to rectify them and still stay within some fairly reasonable hammer weights (strike weight if you prefer that term). Touch weight in terms of inertia and leading or possible unleading decisions can often quite easily be seen at this early stage of analysis. Although resolving some action and key deficiencies can be complex and may require more in depth analysis many are resolved by these simple diagnostic tools early in the process.      For example many of the Stwy actions I (we)work on from the  glory years (The 20's) require no more than a minor knuckle movement (16 to 16.5 mm) to accommodate a slightly heavier hammer and stay within the normal regulation ranges of  .390 ish dip and 1 3/4 blow distance. It's also easily possible to stay within the reasonable inertia ranges and often the original pattern leading is sufficient and uniform enough to retain or shift only slightly. This is important as not many clients will know or appreciate the difference of, or be able to utilize a completely a microscopically balanced action. There are practical financial considerations to the client for all of this tweaking and microscopic adjustment after all and this is a real life consideration.    For the action, technician or pianist desiring the micro-balanced action I'm finding it a whole lot more effective and efficient, all be it more expensive, to design the action and key ratios together by having a new key set made. Roseland makes affordable key sets and sooo many or the old actions frankly have been recovered, resoled , rebushed, and yes even repainted to the point of necessary replacement that it only makes sense to go in this direction. Oh also I left out  just awful original geometry that moving the capstan, etc., will not fix.    I  think that this whole idea of "Component Action Balancing" Terry F.'s term, is a fabulous tool No modern technician would be without but there are differing levels which it can be applied and my point is to "Point that out" to prevent less indoctrinated or experienced brethren on the list to be overwhelmed by the whole discussion of action balancing and simply throw up there hands saying I'll never be able to sell my clients all that so why try.    As Bill Spurlock has often said "many people were moved to tears, goose bumps, etc., by many of these pianos" when they were new, which doesn't mean they were as refined as we know they can be now  but it's important to strive to do consistent basic piano work first and add the more technical type skills as fast as one can. In concluding  Bill has also often said"It isn't necessary to reinvent every action for every client" even though I'd personally like to. Does that make sense to any body else.    Just my view >Dale Erwin </HTML>