Need for Roll Auto-Tracking
By Bob Conant
Robbie wrote in Digest 970121:
>[ "Incidental" is right! I've concluded that the roll-tracking system
>[ on 88-note pianos is the result of the poorly designed chuck and
>[ flanges. You don't see roll-tracking systems on nickelodeons and
>[ organs, do you ! -- Robbie
There may be several good reasons why this is the case. First, the coin- operated pianos, nickelodeons, orchestrions, etc., were built a bit more bullet-proof for use in commercial operations. This was at a higher cost but, because they were intended to earn money, a little extra cost could be absorbed as opposed to a standard player piano which was marketed to the general public and was subject to considerable price pressure.
Second, the orchestrions, etc., would play the same rolls many times without changing them. This meant that even though the rolls were played a lot, they were not handled as much. Normal piano rolls, however, received a lot of mishandling and would become imperfect at the edges requiring some form of tracking to compensate.
Third, the industry agreements of 1906 created "standards" which allowed the interchange of instruments and media from a multitude of manufact- urers. This meant that a piano manufacturer had to assure that his piano would play reliably regardless of the source of rolls. Some of these rolls were good and some were pure cr*p, just like many of today's products.
To be able to have the best chance of handling these "foreign" rolls, the pianos needed something like a tracking device to compensate for poorly made rolls. In contrast, the coin pianos usually used rolls from a single source, either their own or an authorized vendor. They could work out the specs so that the rolls fit the spool frame without a lot of adjustment.
Personally, I am glad that there are tracking devices on home type player pianos. I have seen ripped and torn rolls and those with chewed up edges play through just fine on my pianos. Without a usable tracking device, those rolls would never be heard again. Obviously some tracking systems worked better than others but most of the popular brands work just fine whether by using contact ears or holes in the tracker bar.
Just my opinion.
Bob Conant
Endicott, NY
[ Author's comment:
[
[ Thanks for your patient reply, Bob; my opinion was a bit abrupt.
[ I agree that rolls on the coin-op machines suffered much less physical
[ abuse, versus kids handling the rolls on the home player. Also, that
[ the "standards of 1906" were voluntary, unlike the Mil and DIN Specs
[ I deal with which are usually mandatory. It annoys me that there is
[ such a big difference in dimensions of the flange holes among the old
[ player roll brands. The "specification" was obviously not enforced nor
[ rigorously observed. If the roll didn't fall out of the spoolbox, it
[ was okay!
[
[ Wayne Stahnke found that re-spooling old warped rolls on a giant spool
[ helps the tracking tremendously. Indeed, if necessary he mounts an old
[ Ampico or Welte roll on a 1.5- or 2-inch diameter core for transcrip-
[ tion. I'm sure that the larger core of the big organs and coin-operated
[ instruments also helped the self-tracking.
[
[ I have a small set of "serpentine" rolls I keep for evaluating the per-
[ formance of any automatic tracking system. (The "fish pole" mechanical
[ scheme <Simplex?> is one of the best!) These are Ampico rolls which
[ came with my B piano 40 years ago. The edges are somewhat feathered,
[ but still servicable. They were played too many times with the
[ tracking system oscillating madly, and they develop a permanent "set"
[ in the paper -- on _any_ piano the auto-tracker must constantly fight a
[ battle with the lateral warp of the roll. They are fine for testing --
[ they _won't_ play without auto-tracking on any spoolbox I've tried!
[
[ Robbie Rhodes |
(Message sent Wed 29 Jan 1997, 02:51:34 GMT, from time zone GMT-0500.) |
|
|
Mechanical
Music Digest™ Archives
