<html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue style='word-wrap: break-word;-khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space'> <div class=Section1> Any ratio (within reason) can be made to work as long as lines of convergence are reasonable and the SWs are a good match for the ratio.  Whether or not a high ratio piano such as this will sound good with a very light set of hammers is another issue that I won’t venture into but most likely it will be fine—might even be better!.  I have tweaked many pianos of this vintage with 17 mm knuckles, slight capstan moves and somewhat lighter hammers with good results.  There is always the option of assist springs to consider as well.    <div> David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com </div> -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Kent Swafford Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 5:07 PM To: Pianotech List Subject: Re: popsicle stick engineering   <div> You know, when I tell people at the university that a piano was a dog from the beginning and that new parts over the years have only made things worse, they look at me like I'm crazy. On the other hand, one seems to always be able to get pianists to agree that there is not much of anything worse than a bad S&S. Maybe they just think I'm crazy for suggesting that an instrument with manufactured-in canine characteristics could actually ever be changed into a fine instrument. </div> <div>   </div> <div> Did you mean "acceptable ratio may not be _achievable_"? Or did you mean to say that even with a good ratio, this action might still have unacceptable characteristics? </div> <div>   </div> <div>   </div> <div> Kent </div> <div>   </div>   <div> <div> On Oct 29, 2006, at 5:37 PM, <a href="mailto:Erwinspiano@aol.com">Erwinspiano@aol.com</a> wrote: </div> <div> <div>   This is really out there. Even with a capstan move an acceptable Ratio may not be acceptable without a new set of keys & a balance rail in a different spot. </div> <div>   Dale </div> <blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt; margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'> 5.6? This is on a Steinway B that currently has a SWR of 6.5 with  17mm Steinway shanks. Kent On Oct 29, 2006, at 9:29 AM, David C. Stanwood wrote: > Hi Kent, > > Strike Weight ratios will always vary note to note.  Better to hit  > an average Strike Weight Ratio level using a straight capstan  > line.  This means finding sample capstan positions across the key  > board that hit the target SWR.  When you hold a straight edge to  > the sample marks they will not all be exactly on the line.  Strike  > you new capstan line such that it comes closest to all the marks.   > Let the key ratio be what ever it is to be to make your target  > SWR.  What is your target SWR? > > David S </blockquote> </div> <div>   </div> </div>   </div> </body> </html>