<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial" bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2> <DIV> <DIV>  Ric</DIV> <DIV>  I Agree. Same page</DIV> <DIV>  Dale</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>As far as Kent moving the capstan alone to get a 5.6 ratio...  Again... <BR>if the capstan placement yields anything close to the above specs... <BR>then ok... but if those specs already exist for his 6.5 ratio (which <BR>seems unlikely I'll admit but just so) then the roughly 6-8 mm of move <BR>that will be needed will force a regulation that will require either a <BR>significantly shorter blow, deeper key dip, or more let-of distance to <BR>keep the same aftertouch.  No way around it....  lowering the ratio will <BR>move the action in that direction.  If you at least double check your <BR>capstan placement with the standard ratio as a guide to see in each <BR>case... what harm in that ?<BR><BR>I know about Steinways relatively wide window of action regulation <BR>parameters.  For my part.  10.5 mm and 44.5 blow is the extreme end of <BR>low ratios.  I dont shoot for outpoints myself.  Nor do I see it is <BR>necessary in like 95% of the cases I run into. <BR><BR>Cheers<BR>RicB</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>