Recently I had the opportunity to examine, compare and study two
fairly early piano rolls manufactured by the Aeolian Company about
1910 or a little before.  Both rolls are, note for note, of precisely
the same arrangement: a rag medley entitled "Plantation Rag".

The significant difference is that one is a 65-note roll cut six-to-the
inch and the other a so-called "88-note" roll cut nine-to-the-inch but
using no notes outside the 65-note range.  Since the 88-note version
has sustaining pedal perforations added, it may have been necessary to
duplicate the original master roll.  But the note portion is the same.

The 65-note roll is cut, as one would expect, from a 2:1 [expanded]
master roll -- a standard practice of the industry.  The 88-note roll,
however, appears on close examination to have been cut from a 4:1
master.  But on even closer examination, it is obviously not.  Instead,
the paper was advanced through the perforator in increments equal to
half those of the 65-note perforator, with the master roll advancing
every other step.  The result is that whatever appears as a single round
punch on the 65-note scale, it appears on the 88-note scale as a double
punch, consisting of two overlapping round punches.

Further checking of various early 88-note rolls by other manufacturers
such as Angelus, Connorized and Electra, reveals the practice of
double-punching as well.  A notable exception is QRS 88-note, although
the company made 65-note rolls too.  Connorized 88-note rolls were
double-punched well into the mid-1920's, apparently right up until that
company switched to square punches.

The entire Pianolist's Library, Aeolian's top-of-the-line classical
rolls, was double-punched with the exception of its Metro-Art
recordings, those being made from Duo-Art masters with the dynamics
omitted.

(Duo-Art and Ampico rolls were single-punched using 2:1 masters right
from the beginning until both companies switched to 3:1 mastering after
it became evident that, despite careful editing, the earlier system was
woefully inadequate to "capture the soul of the artist".)

So why was this eventually abandoned practice of double-punching on the
88-note, nine-to-the-inch scale started in the first place?  A study
of various early player actions reveals the answer.  Many players were
built to play both 65- and 88-note rolls.  Double-punching on the
9-to-the-inch scale uncovers the tracker bar port for a duration equal
to the larger single perforations on the 65-note scale.  This made it
possible to build player actions capable of playing both roll types
well using only one set of bleeds.

Unfortunately, long after the practice of double-punching was given
up, a problem has arisen.  I have studied three double-valve Aeolian
65/88-note actions used in Steinway instruments, grand and upright.
All have #65 (drill size) bleeds.  On the two latest (1911), the
6-to-the-inch tracker bar ports are narrow slits about half the height
of those on the earlier bar.  Obviously this was an effort to further
improve the compatibility of the two roll types.

However, performance is poor on certain 88-note rolls with smaller
perforations.  This includes many QRS rolls made during the World War
Two era and certain recuts.  Apparently some of the paper used had
a tendency to pucker while being punched with dull punches.  As the
pucker closes in afterward, the resulting hole is smaller than the
punch used to create it.  Average size perforations will not play notes
if there is any appreciable tracking error, especially when paper width
is affected by variations in humidity.

The pouches in all three actions examined are of normal porosity.
Making them completely airtight would no doubt improve performance,
but would it solve the problem completely?  I doubt it.  Aren't pouches
supposed to become less porous as microscopic dust particles in the
atmosphere get drawn into the pores?  Perhaps..., until a tracker bar
pump is used!

Still, #65 bleeds are considerably larger than those used in most,
if not all, 88-note-only actions.  Replacing the bleeds with smaller
ones would greatly improve performance with 88-note rolls, but introduce
poor repetition on the 65-note scale.  Perhaps the ultimate solution
would be to use longer tubing on the 88-note section of the tracker
bar, so that tubes going to a separate set of bleeds could be connected
via Y-connectors to the 65-note tubing between the tracker and shifter
bars, and brought up between the 88-note tubes.  Switching could be
contrived so that both sets of bleeds would work together when playing
a 65-note roll.

It's more trouble than it's worth, particularly (if not impossible)
on the grand action.  Better to just replace the bleeds in favor of
improved 88-note performance, and play the 65-note rolls at a funeral
dirge tempo or on a separate instrument!

Jeffrey R. Wood