[ Editor's Note:
 [
 [ The following is an article written by Craig Brougher which
 [ addresses some misconceptions about the Ampico A and B
 [ expression systems.  Robbie did the editing, with input
 [ from Craig and Terry Smythe.  There are 4 drawings which
 [ are available as a suppliment to this article (but are
 [ not required to understand it) .  I have FAX resolution TIFF
 [ images of these drawings and will try to get them onto the
 [ FTP server in the next couple of days.  I'll announce
 [ the pathnames at that time.
 [
 [ Jody

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                     Ampico Misconceptions
                              by
                         Craig Brougher

-- Introduction

    The purpose of this article is to put to rest many of the
misconceptions regarding the supposed differences existing between
the Ampico model A and model B.  There seems to be so much confusion
when it comes to understanding the differences between their
crescendos, that an in-depth analysis is sooner or later obligatory.
However, this paper will deal only with an overview of the common
misconceptions as they relate to the worthiness of the Ampico model B.
It should stand to reason that if the prime requisite of the design was
compatibility with the model A, insofar as roll performance was
concerned, then mechanical differences between the two machines are
academic.  Our subject then, will be to examine some misconceptions and
show why some rebuilders mistakenly believe that the model B doesn't
come up to 'A' standards.

    A valuable history reference is the book, "The Ampico Reproducing
Piano", edited by Richard J. Howe, published by Music Box Society
International (MBSI).  For information contact:
    Angelo Rulli, 887 East Orange Ave., St. Paul, MN 55106
    email: <angelor@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>

    For materials and information about the Ampico, contact The Player
Piano Co., Wichita, KS at 316-263-3241.  Reprints of these service
manuals are available:

    "Ampico Inspector's Instruction Book, 1919 (with 1920 Supplement)"

    "The Ampico Service Manual 1929"

-- A Self-Compensating Mechanism

    In contrast to the Duo-Art, the Ampico is a self-compensating
mechanism.  For example, if a number 1 intensity in a Duo-Art is to
be set for three particular notes of a chord, the roll will set it up
from the 1 intensity hole on the tracker bar.  But if 5 or 6 notes are
called for at the 1 intensity, the 2 intensity hole is used in order to
play the 1 intensity.  The reason is due to "stack transients."  Losses
and undesirable changes in pressure due to the playing of notes.  In
the Duo-Art, these changes are anticipated on the note sheet.  In the
Ampico, they are automatically compensated for by the physical way in
which the reproducing mechanism is designed.

    For example, in the model A, the three intensity pneumatics for
each side of the stack are supplied, not by pump vacuum, but by
regulated stack vacuum, and are opposed by a so-called spring regulator
pneumatic, which is slaved to the crescendo and driven by pump vacuum.
This means that as the crescendo increases its pressure the regulator
valve opens more, the stack also increases vacuum, and therefore the
intensity pneumatics get stronger, too.  As the notes make their
demands on the pump through the expression system, the intensity
pneumatics are changing accordingly, even at the same unchanging
intensity, allowing the spring pneumatic, which is not supplied by the
stack, to become a greater or lesser percentage of the opening force on
the regulator valve.  This alone is how the model A is able to
compensate for played notes.  The explanation is made very clear also
in the Ampico Inspector's Instruction Book, 1919 (with 1920
Supplement).  See pg. 8.

-- Stack Transients

    It has been said that: "the model B crescendo system does not
initiate corrective action for stack transients as do most earlier
stack crescendo systems."

    In actuality neither the model A or B allows the crescendo to take
corrective action for stack transients.  They are totally and
completely isolated.  How can they, since in both model A and B, the
crescendo system is connected directly to pump vacuum?  And always have
been.  Nor can they be alluding to the action of the A amplifier on
pump vacuum, because then they would have to agree that when the Modify
switch is set to "Normal" or "Medium" (both the same), or "Soft," the
amplifier is switched out of the reproducing circuit.  It has already
been said in a previous article by one rebuilder, erroneously, that
when the model A modifier switch is in the center position (Normal),
the player provides "unfettered operation."  So by this criteria, the
model A without its amplifier becomes a direct-to-the-pump-spill
crescendo without an ability to raise pump vacuum over the nominal
mezzo-forte 18 in. water.  So you can see that either way we try to
understand this from their point of view, it is incorrect, and
contradictory.

    Were the crescendo required to compensate for stack transients, as
we have read, the machine would not be an "Ampico," but a totally
different concept altogether.  This will be fully explained.

    The model B regulator compensates for stack transients as does the
model A.  That is obvious, otherwise the roll would be used to
anticipate its transients like a Duo-Art, and the B could no longer be
used to play early Ampico rolls.  In fact, the model B intensities are
quicker and more precise in compensating for stack transients than any
of the earlier models of Ampico.  It does this automatically by a
proportional curtain valve called the regulating curtain.

    This, by the way, is technically not the so-called original
"C pouch" referred to by Dr. Hickman in his diary, as some believe.
See page 239 in the book, "The Ampico Reproducing Piano".  Also see
pp.  64, 67, 76-78, 283, 289, 303.  The "C pouch" had a different
configuration, and was eventually changed, beginning about July, 1926,
and finally the regulating curtain is born in Sept. 1927.  All this is
according to the Hickman diary kept during the development of the model B.

    There is nothing more basic to the operation of the Ampico than the
fact that it is a self-compensating mechanism.  Unless a reproducer is
able to counteract stack transients either by roll coding (Duo-Art) or
in the physical mechanism (Ampico and others), it cannot be called a
reproducer.  It would be "at the mercy of its own extremes" -- an
impossible device.

    If a Duo-Art, for example, was given a self-compensating mechanism
and then a Duo-Art roll played on it, the performance would be
over-compensated and unrealistic.  Likewise, if the Ampico note sheet
were re-coded to compensate for what it does automatically, it too
would play too loud when it wasn't supposed to, and if readjusted to
play very soft, would then be unrealistic.

-- The Model B Crescendo

    The crescendo mechanism in the model A acts as a reference against
which the intensities are expressed.  Therefore, it must be unaffected
by the stack expression intensities, or it would become dependent on
the intensity value, and the Ampico could no longer reproduce.

    The model B uses a proportional "curtain regulator." This is a
thin, flexible sheet of pneumatic cloth which seals off the supply to
the stack, proportional to the percentage of the vacuum pressure under
it to that which is above it, which opens it proportionally.  At the
first intensity, which is the "set point" of the Ampico, the vacuum
under the regulator pouch is fixed so that the pressure above the pouch
in the stack will be balanced with exactly the same amount of vacuum
regardless of the number of notes being played (all the way to the
limits of the pump, of course).

    The set point vacuum, or control vacuum which opens the pouch or
curtain makes the demand that the same pressure in the stack
corresponds to the pressure on the other side of the curtain.  It does
this by "peeling" the curtain off the supply grid holes to the exact
percentage required to exactly balance the vacuum pressure on the other
side.  This is done "automatically" without adding more intensities
under the curtain.  It's just the nature of the device.

    There are two reasons that this is an improvement over the model A:

        1) The stack vacuum acts directly on the regulator valve
           instead of external pneumatics controlling the regulator
           valve, and

        2) the regulator curtain of the model B is much lighter and
           faster than the A mechanism.

    The reason that (1) is important is because the model A regulator
is also affected by the stack pressure upon the regulator valve disk
itself which creates a small self-defeating counter-response.  In the
B system the regulator curtain is much lighter and faster than the
combined mass of a spring pneumatic connected to the large intensity
pallet and its three pneumatics used by the model A.  That means (2)
that the regulator curtain would never overshoot or overcompensate due
to mass as the model A might conceivably do (although this is actually
anticipated and compensated for on the model A by another device called
the "equalizer" pneumatics, mentioned below).

    In regard to the comparison of differences in speed between the
model A and B Ampico crescendos, some believe that the has a faster
crescendo than the A, implying that the two could not possibly be
compatible.  Just because the model B completes it travel in half the
time does not make it incompatible, since it must travel faster in
order to maintain about the same rate of change as a direct crescendo
operating on the intensities themselves.  They are effectively equal.

    I have documented by quotes in my article, "Unraveling the Ampico
Mys-tique", in the AMICA BULLETIN, that the model B was designed to be
compatible with the late 1921-22 roll editing procedures which were
then standardized and used ever since (with the exception of the
Hupfeld roll series which was a frustrated project creating an
"experimental" set of rolls, most of which were never reissued).  It
was not designed to be equivalent to the model A, nor did it have to
be.  The model B crescendo rate is about equivalent to the A.  It goes
at twice the speed in order to have the same affect, dynamically.  That
is because of the direct nature of the crescendo pneumatic on the A,
making it effectively faster exponentially (starts higher on the same
exponential curve if you wished to graph it).

-- How The Crescendos Really Work

    Another mistaken belief is: "During those periods when the
crescendo driver <that means, "Crescendo" in Ampico terminology> is not
actively engaged by an external signal (programming from the roll), the
action of the pallet applies inverted feedback from the stack to driver
control, thereby continuously tailoring the strength of the spring
pneumatic to the action of the main regulator valve."

    The regulator pallet portion of the Crescendo is called a "set
point controller," in fluid mechanics or industrial engineering.  It
doesn't work by negative or "inverted" feedback from the stack at all.
That is a term reserved for a return of the output of a machine to the
input, from a later stage (output) to an earlier stage.  This is just a
mechanical compensating mechanism.

    The more objectionable point here is not in bad terminology, but
the authoritative teaching that the action of the pallet valve on a
crescendo applies inverted feedback from the stack.  We have already
seen that the crescendos MUST BE ISOLATED from stack pressure in order
to work.  This is not a technical opinion.  This is a fact.  There is
only 4 tubes going to each crescendo.  You have a pump supply hose, two
tracker bar tubes, and the connecting output tube (which is crescendo/
first intensity vacuum) slaving the spring pneumatic.  There is no
physically possible way of tubing the crescendo so it can be influenced
by stack vacuum.  Again, this is not a matter of opinion, but a
physical fact.  (We will talk about the model A amplifier in a moment).

    Were the crescendo somehow even slightly influenced by the stack
pressure, then to the degree to which it is influenced would be the
degree the reproducer could not respond to the roll.  It is the job of
any set point controller to maintain a constant pressure against a
varying one.  Were the set point to vary as well, then it could not be
the reference.  It's like having a crescendo-decrescendo analog ramp
device attached to an imaginary spring.  Without this basic
understanding of all self-compensating reproducing pianos, we could not
have the first inkling of how they could do their job!  To begin to
understand the Ampico, you must first understand this basic concept of
regulation with a fixed reference point.

    Visualize a mechanical spring replacing the spring pneumatic (which
is exactly what they did in the Marquee Ampico).  It would be a
compression spring normally set for the first intensity.  Adding
crescendo action to the spring is the same thing as moving its mount up
and down accordingly, increasing and decreasing the tension.  Now you
have mechanically the exact analogy to the model A crescendo system.
You might suppose why Stoddard called it a "spring pneumatic."  It
takes the place of an imaginary, continuously adjustable compression
spring.

    The next mistaken belief is this: "Ampico's highly stabilized
expression system combined with its spring loaded stack equalizer
pneumatics make the task of keeping up with normal stack operating
demands (especially at soft playing levels) much less dependent upon
the expression coding."

-- The Equalizer

    The equalizers' task in the model A is definitely not to keep up
with stack demands in any way, shape, or form.  As a matter of fact,
they actually add to the stack demand just a little.  You can't hang a
"winker pneumatic" onto each end of a stack and not create more demand.
(No engineer would try to keep up with "demands" by hanging another
load on the thing that needed the help.) So why are they really there?

    The equalizers are there for one purpose -- to compensate for
regulator valve overshoot.  This is a logical assumption, but frankly
the only one that makes sense at all.  There was a fear that because of
the speeds at which the expression valve was forced to shoot up and
down, that wide excursions would cause it to momentarily close the
regulated stack vacuum for a split second and a note could miss.  So
these lightly sprung equalizers were added to become tiny little vacuum
supplies all their own, storing a little energy in each spring to
oppose the closing off.

    The problem is, they are a "compromise" between cleaner low
intensity reproduction of dynamics and a mechanical flaw of the
regulator valve.  The irony of the story about the winker pneumatics
is, they were not needed anyway.  It was an unfounded fear and then
possibly an inability to admit to the error.

    (They say the proof of the pudding is in the eating.  So why not
take a very sensitive, difficult roll to play like "Gardens In The
Rain," and try it with and without the winker pneumatic springs.  Just
unhook the springs.  That's a five minute job at the very most.  Record
it both ways.  Then listen after the performance has gotten cold in
your own ears, and decide for yourself which is the best one.  Some say
they don't hear any difference at all (which is not surprising
either).  I personally like it better without the "even-ing" effects,
but historically, restore the piano completely without changes.  Then
if you want to make that change, do it. It's your piano!)

    It was also said that the crescendos are controlled by a "binary"
code: "By means of a binary code -- the crescendos are controlled."
And, "(the model B) employs the same binary language using two tracker
bar ports."

    Binary coding is done in a combination of off and on codes.  Analog
coding is done relative to real time by determining how long an input
remains open, closed, or in combination with the other input.  As long
as one or the other tracker bar holes stay open, is as long as that
crescendo function is active.

    The Ampico Crescendo is an analog ramp device, not a binary
    controller.  Its control is more like a faucet with two knobs, than
two telegraph keys.  See again pp. 4-6 of the Inspector's Instruction
Book, 1919.  In contrast, the Duo-Art's expressions do compound in true
binary code, even though its tracker bar signal is also part analog by
duration.  True, one can utilize a logic state table to show the
relationship of any two-port combination during operation, but logic
tables apply to analog devices as well as digital.  You can do the same
for lock-and-cancel valves which are also not binary coded.

    Wrong terms create wrong premises.  I would just encourage the use
of an original instrument term, or if unavailable or inapplicable, to
check a technical dictionary to be sure we have it right.  For example,
the company used the different terms for the same thing, like "Normal"
or "Medium." Therefore, both are correct when referring to the Modify
Switch center position.

-- To Crescendo, Or Not Crescendo

    "All independent dual crescendos described above directly affect
suction levels in their assigned portions of the stack, i.e. they are
true crescendos."  Another misunderstood concept.

    The term "Crescendo" clung to the Ampico terminology ever since its
patent description-- sometime around 1909.  That was long before any
standard coding techniques had really been worked out to everyone's
satisfaction.  It became immediately evident that using these "set
point controllers" to actually swell and diminish the dynamics
irrespective of intensities was the wrong thing to do because it made
the note sheet highly tempo dependent!

    Consider that in only 1.5-2 seconds, that piano could go from first
intensity (ppp) to a triple forte (fff), via the crescendo if the roll
were so coded.  If the roll speed were 65, only 1.3 inches of travel
and the expression would be off the chart! If you liked the tempo, say
15% different than printed on the leader, the roll expression would
vary exponentially for each linear inch of travel of the fast
crescendo, so 0.02 inches difference, plus or minus, could change the
roll expression considerably, when the difference is taken at the top
of the expression curve.  In general you can say that a 15% difference
in tempo will average out to be about 4.5 in. water error, during fast
crescendos used exclusively.  That's a whale of a lot of difference,
and is probably why Ampico decided not to use the crescendos for
crescendo-ing.  Even slow crescendos sort-of "swept up and down" like
waves, very melodramatic-like.

    You don't have to take my word for this.  You can know this for a
fact from an interview between Angelico Valerio, Ampico roll editor
from 1923-1930, and Nelson Barden, the now well-known interviewer who
also interviewed Dr. Clarence Hickman and others connected with the
Ampico in its heyday.  Here now they are discussing this very problem
regarding roll coding techniques with crescendo.

"The Ampico Reproducing Piano", p 128:

    Barden:  "Weren't most of the rolls before 1926 very
    crescendo oriented?"

    Valerio: "Yes they were.  And some of them sounded
    atrocious, too."

    Barden:  "Terrible, just awful."

    Clearly, they are talking about some of the strange rolls, like
from the Hupfeld series which were desperately re-coded by chief editor
Milton Suskind (just before he was fired), because except for these,
there are very few others that did not follow the 1921-22
standardization.  That's easy to prove.  The crescendos on rolls
between 1921 and the present can actually be measured (again, not a
technical difference of opinion), and it will be seen that the vast
majority of them are NOT crescendo oriented, as Barden prompted Valerio
to respond.

    But the point is this: Crescendo-oriented rolls were considered by
Ampico to be "Terrible. Just awful. Atrocious."  That means, no
"Crescendo" on any Ampico can be a "true crescendo," unless they were
used for that purpose.

    I really don't see two sides to this discussion at all.  This is
not a point of view.  It is an historical as well as a proven physical
fact, documented in Ampico manuals, measurable on a gauge, and proven
in rolls that don't play well.

    It is certainly true that the crescendo in an Ampico B doesn't
change the intensities directly, but requires intensities to be on so
it is able to modulate them, whereas in the A, the Crescendo overcomes
the intensities directly.

-- The "True" Crescendo

    The point still remains this:  There is only one thing which makes
either system a "true crescendo" -- the roll coding formula! It makes
"true crescendo" from either system but never allows either system to
crescendo itself as a function of roll speed! Do not fall into the
belief that only one of these systems has a "true" crescendo.  That is
incorrect.  Just keep in mind the reason why they could not be used
that way, for the most part.  It made the rolls too greatly tempo
dependent, but it did something else, too.  They sounded humorously
melodramatic, as though someone were spoofing an artist instead of
reproducing his performance.

    This is why Valerio said what he did about crescendo-dependent
rolls.  Nobody who is truly musical could stand them for very long.
A musician would really get a chuckle out of some of them.  They are
reminiscent of something you might hear in silent movies.

    "All pre-model B Ampico expression systems, except the 1A, can
superimpose full crescendos over any preprogrammed intensity level
including zero.  Their crescendo systems are fully independent of their
step systems and can achieve full effect at the stack at all times (the
model B expression system does not have this capability)."

    In the first place, you don't have to worry about the so-called
"Ampico model 1A."  Only _one_ of them was ever built!  It was
considered unsatisfactory by both Dr. Hickman and Mr. Stoddard.

    The fact that the Ampico roll coding system was never intended to
utilize crescendos separately from the intensities is actually borne
out by the fact that neither the model A or the model B used the
so-called "independent" Crescendos.  This becomes an ipso-facto
statement which requires no proof.  It is self-evident in Ampico rolls.

    As an aside to this fact, the longest slow crescendo I have found
on any of my rolls, in a modest 600 Ampico roll collection, is a little
over 2" for a slow crescendo.  It is in a 1915 march roll.  The model B
has absolutely no problems with this at all and plays the roll
perfectly.  Now what does a crescendo 2.3 inches long amount to?  Well,
with the pump spill set to 20" and the roll traveling about 65-70, the
change in pressure is 5% or about 1" water difference.  And why did
they do that? Because the model A had to have a little boost in the
compensation department, anyway.  While it was almost a perfect
compensator, it wasn't a compensator to the degree the model B was.
With the model B, we could just leave those excursions in.  They
wouldn't hurt anything, and they didn't help either.

    As a matter of fact, you could tape over most of the slow
crescendos in 99% of all Ampico rolls and hear very little difference
indeed.  After all, most slow crescendo holes are between 1/4" and 3/4"
long.  At a speed of 80, not even the best ear will hear it.  It was
for mechanical, not musical reasons.  That is why they were always
added last of all.  This is also elaborated upon in the interview with
Mr. Valerio who explained that it was just used to give it a "little
backbone."  Ampico apparently used them to raise the "margins" on a few
possibly weaker pianos.

    Also concerning the terminology used by Ampico Corporation, there
was never such a term as "zero intensity." The set-point reference on
an Ampico is always called the _first_ intensity.  Some tend to confuse
the Ampico with the Duo-Art.

    As a final observation on this point: There may be some confusion
regarding the amplifier in the model A and the crescendo function.
There is no connection here.  The amplifier is totally independent of
the crescendo, and raises pump pressure above the nominal 18-20" when a
full solo performance is called for.  It is true "positive" (not
negative) feedback from the stack to the pump, driven indirectly by the
expression system's overall requirements and is just the opposite of
negative feedback, which, were the Ampico to have instead, would render
it useless.

    Another comment we have seen is this: "In the second amplification
position, (referring to the model B) the crescendo capability is
nullified."

    Why some rebuilders try to question the wisdom of the second
amplification, claiming that it is a stupid idea designed to "nullify"
the crescendo, is conceptually wrong and a moot point, but demonstrates
the depths to which a wrong premise can be extended to create many
vastly wrong conclusions.

    The amplifier and crescendo are combined in the model B.  In the
model A, when the piano is playing on Normal, the crescendo can raise
the level in the stack to only the same level as the top power
available from the pump (18-20").  Setting the Modify switch to
Brilliant, the crescendo still is only able to raise the pressure to
the top level of the pump (30-35").  Whether model A or B, the
crescendo (or the pump amplifier section) of either can raise the stack
to the full pressure of the pump for whatever setting you wish to play
at.  Once that happens in the model B they say, "the crescendo
capability is nullified!"

    Nullified, if that's the word to use, means to invalidate.  But it
makes it sound like -- while the model B can only rise to the top
pressure of the pump, the model A can rise above the top pressure of
its pump.  Well, perhaps in the Mad Hatter's piano(?)

-- Compatible Intensities

    "Why the three curves (these are the expression curves in the 1929
Service Manual) are depicted in the manner that they were is open to
question  I suspect that the author(s) did not consider the effect of
the two switched stack spills on stack suction at lower intensity
levels.  Or perhaps, the lack of linearity at the low end was minimized
in an attempt to show the discrete amplification stages."

    The intensity chart takes everything into consideration.  It has
much of the information one would need to show the normal, first and
second amplification curves at whatever intensity setting one wished to
set up.  How else could it be done in simple fashion?  It is from these
three curves that the roll coding format may still be extrapolated! I
believe that a more clear and concise attempt to be open and honest
about the piano could not be had.  Everything is fully and honestly
labeled.  The person responsible for providing the curves for
publication to begin with was Dr. Hickman, himself.  In other words,
the designer of the Ampico thought it important enough to provide these
for publication and authorized them.  Perhaps there is information in
them that an average rebuilder may not appreciate.

    The interview and the speech by Dr. Hickman in Philadelphia in 1979
or '80 showed he disliked trying to fool people or cover up things by
making them more complicated than they were.  It sounds very much like
him, in my opinion.

    There is no reason to accuse the model B of having "incompatibilities"
and the inability for the piano to play other Ampico rolls as well as
the model A does.  The first design criteria, according to the Hickman
diary, was that the new piano had to be fully compatible with the
earlier roll coding system for those people who might want to trade up,
but who had a library of favorite rolls to play.  It had to play those
earlier rolls, which complied with the standardized coding at least as
well, and preferably better than its predecessor.  And a good model B
does just that.

In the Barden/Hickman interview (The Ampico Reproducing Piano,
pg. 110):

    Hickman: "..it broke my heart to think that we had to make the
    quality of the new piano rolls less so that they could work on
    the old one.  But we finally doped it out so that we didn't
    lose too much."

    Barden: "But it's noticeable, and there are some sections where
    there is a problem."

    Hickman: "No, I think we did a pretty good job on that."

    The model B does not skip notes at any intensity level, on any roll
that I have ever played on it.  It does not use elongated staccato
notes because the valves are too insensitive, but because of the
occasional use of the sub intensity, which is far below (30%) the
vacuum level that any other player ever built can manage, so the valve
actually requires an extra few perforator steps to give it time to
rise.  The difference cannot be the basic mechanism then, but perhaps
small points overlooked during a rebuild.  Nor can you disregard a
jaded expectation of the rebuilder to his piano's performance.

-- Summary

    In summary, there are two main points to consider.  It is essential
to understand that the crescendo must be completely isolated from the
stack and powered directly by the pump.  It is influenced by the
amplifier through the spill valve indirectly, but not influenced
directly by the stack or its transients as claimed by some.  Unless a
regulator system has somewhere a solid unvarying reference to balance
against, which is *not* manipulated and bounced around by stack
intensities, the player cannot regulate and maintain a known pressure
to develop intensities upon.

    It's like a balance-beam scale.  You can place a standard weight in
one tray, and then as you change the amount of grain or weight in the
other tray, the beam pointer swings back and forth proportionally to
the difference in weight.  This changes the position of the reference
weights, but not the weight of the reference itself.  Unless the
reference remained the same, the pointer position would mean nothing,
however.  Hence, no reproducer!

    The second point seems to be an attempt to discredit the model B by
comparing it unfavorably to other Ampicos.  I have never heard of or
read an official comparison of reproducers which presumes to evaluate
the quality of one over another.  That really isn't in the spirit of
collecting or restoring vintage instruments, in most people's opinion.
Part of the fun is in accepting and displaying an instrument as an
original restoration of the designer's intent.  We don't seriously
compare Hupfeld Phonolists and Mills Violanos, for example, and run one
of them down at the expense of the other.  I believe that each mutually
excels the other.  And so it is within the Ampico series of pianos as
well.

    There are a number of special considerations required to properly
restore a model B to its former glory.  These details are not necessary
and/or different with other reproducers, and possibly the failure to
observe some or all of these aspects of this decidedly different
instrument mechanically, is the reason that some wish to create doubts
about the genuineness of the model B.  They are perhaps the most
difficult of all reproducers to rebuild well, but the effort is worth
the time and expense.

    The Ampico model B is a glorious, wonderful reproducer player piano
that should make the goose bumps stand up on anyone who loves heartfelt
music.  It plays Ampico rolls gorgeously, without fault, without missed
notes and weak passages, without any problems whatever, and sounds as
eerily human as it is possible to get.  Its dynamics are absolutely
explosive, and yet it can play softer than most human artists are able
to play, reliably, themselves.  It is a profound musical experience,
frankly, and the more that is understood about this piano, the more
profoundly incredible the new arrangements coming out for it will
sound, because we have yet scarcely begun to take advantage of such
power of expression.  Like they say, "You haven't heard anything, yet."

Craig Brougher