In a message dated 9/30/2009 9:59:00 P.M. Central Daylight Time, fssturm at unm.edu writes: On Sep 30, 2009, at 3:48 PM, _PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com_ (mailto:PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com) wrote: In a message dated 9/30/2009 4:22:09 P.M. Central Daylight Time, _amccoy at ewu.edu_ (mailto:amccoy at ewu.edu) writes: Your results may vary. Wow, they sure may. We have a lot of pictures of the results of using differing tools on the inside of the agraffe. The countersink tool creates a very rough surface because of uncontrollable chatter. P Well, I know it borders on heresy, but I am a well known heretic anyway, so I am going to ask the question: at what point in treatment of agraffes does one get beyond what really matters? Very reasonable question, and one that we ponder as we do this work. How perfect is perfect enough? I don't know yet. Is there an actual, perceptible sonic result from this microscopically visible chatter caused by a carefully used countersink? Yes. I grant the polished profile from various recommended treatments looks wonderful, and probably is an ideal to aim at. But how much time is it really worth? As much as you want to spend on perfecting the system. Obvious there is a point of diminishing returns, where the perfect gets in the way of the optimal. After all, the capo is probably more pitted and scratched, looked at through a microscope, than a badly chattered agraffe hole. No, just different shapes. It's brass after all, under same stresses and strains as the capo. I'm quite surprised that there isn't significantly more noise from the agraffes. And those terminations are far more critical, it seems to me. Interesting differentiation. Slippery slope, too. :-) Cheers, Paul Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico _fssturm at unm.edu_ (mailto:fssturm at unm.edu) = -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20091001/4c81017b/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC