<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: More dip in bass</title></head><body> <div>At 9:58 AM -0400 8/15/02, Erwinspiano@AOL.COM wrote:</div> <div>Resetting the sunken hammer line/blow distance to spec.brings the after touch back into tolerance ,don't it? If the dip/aftertouch was once set acurately to a given blow distance this wil work. The same would be true on the baldwin even if it has graduating key and action rations. Phil was choosing to alter the dip,to accomadate the ratios,  I'd choose to alter the hammer line and have the dip the same although I know I definitely don't like a shallow feel in the bass either.</div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div>Why is why I prefer to set the hammer blow where I think it should be, and then regulate the aftertouch (not the dip, thank you).</div> <div><br></div> <div>I look it it this way. if because of variations in leverage which can show up from note to note, two keys next to each other (and with identical blow) need amounts of aftertouch which disagree by 0.01", I would much prefer to have the two dips disagree so that for a commmon blow, the aftertouch can be the same. I figure that the pianist will notice that 0.10" disagreement far less when put into the dip (to achieve a consistent aftertouch), than put into the aftertouch (to achieve a common dip). Comparing 0.010" to 0.396" dip (or what have you), or comparing 0.010" to 0.050" aftertouch (especially if the 0.01" to is subtracted from instead of added to the aftertouch? I'd put my money on the error being  in the dip rather than the aftertouch.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Bill Ballard RPT</div> <div>NH Chapter, P.T.G.<br> <br> "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture"<br>     ...........Steve Martin</div> <div>+++++++++++++++++++++</div> </body> </html>