Love that word, "replicating", as opposed to "duplicting."

 [ How 'bout "cloning"?  :->  -- Robbie ]

A few days ago I innocently, and I suppose ignorantly, suggested
that it shouldn't be too hard to make new holes on new paper match up
precisely with old holes on old paper.

Several posts since have educated me to see that, because errors may
have crept into the best pseudo-masters available for many rolls, the
process of making new rolls often must make up for errors introduced by
different production runs, different original perforators, you name it.
Very interesting.

Now I innocently wonder this:  would it be worthwhile to compensate
for the style of perforation originally used?  Some old rolls produced
sustained chords with long open slits; others used chains of closely
aligned holes.  The advantage to the chains seems to be stability of
the rolls (i.e., resistance to twisting when played and stored).

The disadvantage comes in if your piano has been regulated with such
a hair trigger response that it valiantly tries to play all of those
individual holes (especially at slow tempos).

So my innocent question is: if the replicating technician had a
preference for one perforating style over another would it be possible,
advisable, or even ethical to convert chains to slits or vice versa?

Okay, experts, blow this dumb question out of the water.

Paul Murphy

 [ It's best to first gather the data to replicate the roll, and
 [ then to modify it as needed, for example, to convert Welte T-98
 [ "Green" rolls to Licensee format with lock-and-cancel controls.
 [ Once the data of the original master roll is recovered, custom
 [ alterations for special needs like yours are easily performed
 [ by the computer or the perforator.  -- Robbie