I'd like to make some further comments and a clarification based on
afterthought of my articles in MMD 980502.

First, regarding my questioning hammer velocity and it's effects on the
string if the hammer is being accelerated: This is a _non-issue_ in the
modern pianoforte!

Before the hammer reaches the string, the piano action's "Set-off"
button disconnects the hammer from the action during the last 1/8" of
the hammer's travel.  After this point, there is nothing that a
pneumatic or solenoid can do to effect the terminal velocity of a
hammer.

So the notion of hammer/string contact with a changing velocity is
absolutely non existent, and there can be NO difference in how the
string receives the hammer, whether the note is initially 'bopped'
or otherwise.  Douglas, is it possible for you to post a clarified or
'dumbed down' intention of your statements that instigated my original
question?  What technical flaws are you seeing that would produce
inferior music?

Second, it was noted in the same bulletin that there has been much
speculation by accomplished artists of how the pianist's technique of
playing a note (wrist and body motions, etc.) effects the note being
played after the note is struck.  How can this be, since the wrist/body
motion occurs *after* the note is struck?

In my mind the only aid that any 'technique' could bring is in the
efficiency in how the artist positions themselves on the release of a
note as in a staccato passage, or, to strike the next note as in
quick/quite repetitions.

I feel this theory is supported by the famous turn-of-the-century
time/motion studies -- the so-called 'Scientific Management' theories
-- that were applied to repetitive manufacturing assembly lines.  They
determined that an efficient prior-motion sets one up to attack the
next motion in a clean, controlled and predictable manner -- attributes
essential in human piano playing.

In this light, technique is important, even to the mechanical player
mechanism.  The Stoddard-Ampico/Artigraphic model (1913-1919), leading
to and including the Model A (1920-1929), culminating in the Model B
-- all have had significant component changes over the years that
engineered out needless system complexities.  Each successor possessed
better 'technique' than it's predecessor.

Lastly, I would like to clarify a statement in my "Recording Ampico
Dynamics" posting of the same MMD bulletin.  When I was referring to
the 12-note 'chunk' dynamics splits evenly distributed across the
keyboard compass, I was referring to the Dynamic Recording, not the
finished production roll product.  I realized that my text was
misleading in this regard.

As an untrained enthusiast of mechanical music, I do not know how the
finished Ampico roll subdivided the expression groupings since I have
never found any text describing how the coding works.  Could someone
please reference in an MMD posting a text that would highlight how the
final product Ampico roll Dynamic record works on the finished-product
rolls?  I'm sure others MMDers would benefit from this.

Life is a journey, not an arrival !

Karl Ellison
Ashland, Massachusetts