<HTML>In a message dated 8/17/2002 9:11:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, fordpiano@earthlink.net writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">> If I was > setting wider let-offs in the bass couldn't I > theoretically set the dip shallower?as > escapement is happening sooner and deeper in > the treble cause it's happening later. >        Dale Yes, you're right.  Assuming action geometry same throughout and aftertouch same throughout.  But for whatever reason I seem to like more dip in the bass which normally will mean more aftertouch as you go down the scale.  I'm wondering if maybe this provides an opportunity to vary the geometry a little and lighten up the touch in the bass (and get rid of a little lead). Phil </BLOCKQUOTE>         Phil        You bet and I would consider an action ratio mated to a key ratio to be the best way to go to achieve this. (You'd think this would be  standard O.P in factories.)  This is what Rick Wheeler at Roseland on is doing on new keystets and what David Love and others are doing when  moving capstans and choosing hammer shanks and appropriate knucle geometry in existing actions.     I read Bills post and though it's not news to me I think intuitevly  accomplish the same thing by feel. Basically I use .390 as my target /ballbark desired dip spec.(measured at the pin) but I do the aftertouch feel by tactile sense,which will vary the dip slighty to allow for the descrepencies in action accuracy. Especially with new felts and action parts , set regulation specs move around a good deal as we all know so in the round robin approach to regulation I have always checked very carefully the blow and let-off before I get completely obsessive about dip/aftertouch. Compliments of Red Schoolhouse theology, I mean technology.              Dale Erwin</HTML>