I feel that a rebuttal is in order to some of the comments offered here
by Spencer Chase regarding his comparison of PowerRoll versus the
original rolls.  But before I launch into that, I feel that I should
state that many collectors really want to preserve our mechanical
musical heritage as it was when it was new, not the way some modern day
developers would have it, fully converted to some computer interface.
There is room for both pursuits, but their separate goals should be
identified and placed into perspective.

In his zeal to proclaim the PowerRoll system as being superior, Spencer
has grossly overstated the advantages of that system.  It is quite true
that any original roll transport mechanism may be problematic, but it
is ludicrous to hint that a properly restored reproducing piano
responds better to a PowerRoll interface than it does to the medium for
which it was designed, the paper roll.

Most original playable rolls track perfectly on correctly restored
machines.  New recut rolls of high quality never mis-track.  The errors
eluded to in roll puckering, uneven valve operation and so on are
non-existent in a player that has been properly restored.  The only
time a PowerRoll can make piano sound better, is when that piano has
some problems and needs a larger, quicker hole opening to respond.  If
the listener can hear a difference, PowerRoll versus paper roll, there
is something wrong with the restoration of the piano.

For those of us who truly love the old system, in its pure form, nothing
beats a demonstration of placing an 80-year-old roll in a piano and
having that piano leave the listeners totally breathless at the end of
a perfect performance.

There are many advantages to the PowerRoll system, but making a properly
restored reproducing piano play better isn't one of them.

Bob Taylor