Strings riding up (was Tuning stability)

[David Skolnik]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
At 01:14 PM 4/8/2004 -0500, Ron wrote:

(Italicized portion reinserted by ds)

>>>My experience with our D was a definite perceptible improvement in 
>>>sustain, power, and clarity to some notes from taping once 
>>>judiciously/gently down on every bridge pin in the killer octave.   On 
>>>some strings, the tuning pitch dropped three or more BPS, on others it 
>>>had no affect.
>>>
>>>-Mike Jorgensen
>>
>>By tapping the pins, you effectively seated the strings with the rough 
>>equivalent of a 20 pound weight courtesy of the friction from the offset 
>>angle. Yes, I expect it did sound cleaner.
>>
>>Ron N

DS
>>So we know it can work sometimes. Maybe the pin moved down, dragging the 
>>string along.  Maybe the shock of the tap overcame friction of the 
>>abraded and notched pin, to allow the string to return to its more 
>>neutral position.  We don't know which of the numerous scenarios we have 
>>recently discussed is active in this piano.
>RN
>No, we don't know EXACTLY and COMPLETELY what is happening in any 
>situation - ever.

Why get existentialist on me?  I continue to ask that, in the absence of 
some sort of proof, theories be acknowledged as such.  What I meant by 
"numerous scenarios" was the circumstances of the piano...bearing, notched 
pins, etc.  I just wanted to allow that some other effect than dragging the 
strings down to the bridge surface could be taking place.

>>Ron has, at various times, seemed to accept tapping as a solution, and at 
>>other times, not.
>
>No, I haven't, regardless of what you appear to feel I seem to have 
>implied that I might have meant. Tapping is not a solution, and I have 
>never said it was. I have also never said that it wasn't a possible short 
>term improvement of a tonal problem. What I have repeatedly said is that 
>it doesn't fix the problem. It just masks the symptoms. What I have been 
>apparently miserably unsuccessful in attempting to describe is what I 
>think is really happening, based on my understanding of physics, 
>observable evidence, and logic. I have tried to present it in as 
>straightforward and unambiguous a manner as I can, in as much detail as I 
>have worked out to my satisfaction, and in connection with as many other 
>surrounding and extenuating factors as I can connect. That's the best I can do.

My apologies in reverting to my imprecise usage.  I didn't mean "solution", 
rather, a temporary abatement of the offending symptoms.  For clarity (of 
others) I'll requote (again) from a previous post:

>You choose to ridicule me here.  You left out the quotes I felt were 
>inconsistent.  I'll repeat them:
>
>>In response to me you wrote:
>>
>>>I do care about the string contact with the front of the bridge, but I 
>>>do not agree that tapping the pin will achieve that end. That's the 
>>>whole point of all this. If the string isn't contacting the notch edge, 
>>>it's for a reason that tapping neither string, nor pin will cure.
>>
>>In response to Wim, you said:
>>
>>>Wimblees:
>>>>There has been a lot of discussion about tapping the pin to create 
>>>>better tone, less distortion, etc. But what are we doing? Is the better 
>>>>termination caused because by tapping we are driving the pin deeper 
>>>>into the wood at the bottom of the hole, thus creating a more stable pin,
>>>Ron N:
>>>Partly, but I think mostly dragging the string down with the pin to the 
>>>notch edge.
>>
>>and
>>>WimB
>>>>So what is the real reason for tapping? More wood, or less pin?
>>>RonN
>>>Or seating the string by proxy?
>
>You are telling me that you do not believe that tapping either the pin or 
>the string will cure the lack of notch edge contact, but, in response to 
>Wim, you at least imply that that is exactly what is being done. You may 
>not be able to explain it, but you shouldn't place the responsibility for 
>the confusion on me.

I should not have used "solution: or "cure".


>>My continued discomfort with these kinds of questions (or observations) 
>>and answers (or explanations) is that both are too general to allow the 
>>relevant subtleties to be appreciated, or retained.
>>
>>David Skolnik
>
>Then you're just going to have to find yourself an expert that can answer 
>your questions. I've given you what I have.


Mike's observations were perfectly relevant.  They just lacked enough 
detail to add much insight.  I didn't intend to be demeaning.

I would express my appreciation for what you've given much more often, 
except when I did, you told me you didn't want to be stroked.  So, maybe 
once every two weeks I'll just mildly hint at it.

David Skolnik 

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/1b/0f/68/0a/attachment.htm

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