Accu-just HPs in Steinway D :

[Bdshull@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Always eloquent Ron,

Ah, the joys of sticking my neck out for you to buzz off - as in my intro 
"The design is wrong".  As I noted in my post (with seeming contradiction), I 
would leave to those involved in design, like yourself, to determine with 
certainty whether the design is wrong.  So it might have been more accurate 
if I had written, "The design is undeliberate, without plan."  Or maybe not.  
Maybe the retrofitter worked those numbers, listened to the finished piano, 
and was satisfied.  But we have no idea.  

If we can get past the emotionally charged issues of duplexing, brand names 
and the like....(Please forgive me for my careless, giddy enjoyment.)

I was looking forward to your comments on the issue of string backlength 
distance (maybe even mechanical hinging, but I will stick to backlength 
here).  As I pointed out, I would leave it up to those more comfortable with 
design, like yourself, to determine whether the change was significant.  But 
my point was that the backlength distance had increased from the original 
duplex rest point to the hitchpin location, and that seemed to me to be a 
design change.   I hoped you might comment on that beyond your remarks so 
far.  I assume that what you have had to say is your position (I will guess 
below what that is), but would be very interested in any additional, 
substantive thoughts on the subject.

That is, in the total scheme of things what importance is there to backlength 
distance beyond calculating for downbearing angle?  What would increasing the 
distance on the "D" from the duplex point to the hitchpin result in?  I used 
the word "impedance" with the abbreviation "SB" which you said "does not 
compute."  Is this inappropriate terminology?  Certainly just increasing the 
overall backlength by a certain average distance could reduce the stiffness 
of the strung soundboard mechanism by a measurable, calculable amount.  Is 
this correct?  From the point of view of those of you who are involved with 
design, what does this result in?  Decreased power, longer decay?  
Opportunity to further increase downbearing angle on a healthy new board?  

Or is it completely insignificant?

What I am guessing from your response is that in your view, in the total 
scheme of things (re: Scott's modified Steinway "D"), the increased 
versatility of the vertical pin outweighs the need to control backlength 
distance (at  least on the limited increased distance in this piano).   Or 
not?   And beyond the "D" to the generic retrofit, When would you want to 
begin to make some kind of adjustment for the increased backlength resulting 
from the placement of vertical pin retrofits at existing hitchpin locations?  
How much difference would you be willing to "blow off" before it became 
important in some way?   

With neck retracted,

Bill





In a message dated 5/30/02 7:55:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
RNossaman@KSCABLE.com writes:


> >
> > Not really a Steinwin either, because If the vertical pins were installed 
> in
> > the same location as the original pins, the design is wrong anyway.  
> 
> 
> Wrong, or just different than the original? Define "wrong" please, in this
> context.
> 
> 
> >
> > The relocation of the rear waste length termination from the duplex bar to
> > the hitch pin resulted in a lower impedance.
> 
> 
> How so? Does not compute. Lower impedance in what, and why?
> 
> 
> >
> >   I would think that a responsible retrofit would either place the pins at
> > the duplex points or redesign the backlength to ensure an appropriate
> > placement (either by knowing enough to design this, or consulting with
> > someone who does).   
> 
> 
> With three hitch pins anchoring two unisons, assuming no tied loops, how, 
> pray
> tell, could the "duplex" lengths be duplicated by creative hitch pin 
> placement?
> I'd really like to hear how that is possible. Failing that, what constitutes
> "appropriate" placement? I assume you're referring to backscale length here
> rather than alignment.
> 
> 
> >
> > If it sounds good as is, great, otherwise I wouldn't leave it as it is 
> unless
> > you are sure that the change in backlength did not contribute to the 
> problem.
> 
> 
> What problem? I didn't see anything in the original post indicating that 
> any of
> this was a problem other than it was considered to be a sloppy job, sans
> details, and it wasn't like it was originally done. Is the implied 
> "problem" a
> performance, or a political issue?
> 
> 
> >
> >  I am not keen on returning the duplex bar without getting rid of the
> > vertical pin, since the pin will now be inclined to creep up. 
> 
> 
> Enough to fail to adequately terminate the string at the aliquot? How much
> deflection angle is necessary behind an aliquot? Precious little, I would
> think. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
> 
> 
> >
> > Kent Webb has gotta see this one.  Get some good pictures for him, and he
> > could use them in a program as a gag intro. 
> >
> > Bill Shull
> 
> 
> Only if he, or you, can say if, and why it's wrong.
> 
> Ron N
> 



---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/d8/a6/a3/e3/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--