<HTML style="FONT-SIZE: x-small; FONT-FAMILY: MS Sans Serif"><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1251"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <P> <DIV>Ric said: "<FONT size=+0>Thanks. Let me see if I understand you right. You are saying to compare </FONT> <DIV><FONT size=+0>the old scale lengths with the new, determine the ratio of the </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>difference between each, and offset the hammers accordingly ? I suppose </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>one takes the existing strike point on the strings and duplicate that in </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>terms of the ratio of the string length to striking point on the new </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>strings ?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Narkisim size=4>Hmmm? I think you get it, but not sure.<G> I assume you have the Olde Scale. Stuff the action into the piano; measure where the Original Hammers Strike point is; take that number and the number of that notes string length; do the math ....and you'll have a "ratio" or "fraction", if you will. (i.e. 1/6th, 1/10th, etc.) That should give you a starting "point" to aim for in the New strike point. Because the action and belly rail can only be varied a limited amount, you may have to make some compremises to physically make it work. (think: large can of worms<G>)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>Looks to me like the most significant change will be in the higher </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>treble. I'm looking at two alternatives before placing and notching the </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>new bridge. The top string A85 was 48 mm long. A very short scale to </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>say the least. One scenario has that going to 54 mm and the lowest bass </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>string increasing 3 mm in length so as to make possible as smooth a </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>transition from the longer (new) high treble to the tenor section. The </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>other is a much more moderate change keeping the tenor and most of the </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>treble lengths the same, but increasing the top octave lengths a </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>little... with A85 going up to 50.5. In both cases tho it would seem to </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>me that any change in striking point would be most significant in the </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=+0>high treble... yes ?"</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Narkisim size=4>The bass should not be too much of a problem. However, the upper treble will be, as there is the likelyhood that the belly rail will not allow you clearance for that longer string. As you know, the slightest addition/subtraction of strike point, in that area, makes a huge difference in tone production. Personally, I wouldn't get to "radical" in the top treble string lengths. As for the calculating formulae that takes "Harmonicity" as the criteria...I can't comment on it, other than to say that that is what we REALLY are trying to do in Scaling, is to attempt to make all of the dominant Harmonics match. In the real world that just is not possible, IMO, although it would be nice. Kinda' like calcing the longetudinal inharmonicity of bass strings: looks good on paper, but doesn't really make for good piano sound in the real world.<G></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Narkisim size=4>Have fun.</FONT></DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Joe Garrett, R.P.T.</DIV> <DIV>Captain of the Tool Police</DIV> <DIV>Squares R I</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P></P></BODY></HTML>