pianotech-digest V1997 #1919 (long)

[Ron Nossaman]

>Ed has three main points to make here. The first is his (hotly disputed
<grin>)
>contention about the Vacuum pattern plate casts reduced ability to damp
metallic
>noise. 

* This has not been "hotly disputed" my a single living soul, as far as what
I've read on this list. Am I missing the good stuff?


The second and third points are related.He states that  the Vacuum method
>creates a harder plate, which causes problems particularily with the capo bar
>termination, String breakage results from the Capo bar being to hard. To
counter
>that problem the capo bar is profiled with a wide rounded termination point
which in
>turn undermines the pivoting function of the capos termination point,
causing loss
>of string energy, excessive sting buzzing noise (especially as the capo bar
wears)
>and excessive wear on the capo bar itself (due to the string no longer having a
>precise pivot.)

* This is exactly contrary to what folks have been saying on this list. I
don't recall anyone claiming anything but softer iron in the V-Pro plates,
with a harder iron, and a sort of case hardening in the sand cast. Is that
right, or am I in the Twilight Zone? If I read the posts right, who's
correct, Ed, or the people with contentions contrary to his? Which is it, is
the V-Pro plate harder, or softer than traditional sand cast plates, and by
who's authority is this determined? Also, I got into a discussion recently
where (nearly) everyone and his brother claimed that the V-bar needed to be
hard, *and* of a small radius profile in order to minimize string noises in
the front duplex, in some cases, regardless of the counter bearing angle and
length of the duplex segment. This is, again, at least partially contrary to
what Ed wrote. Again, who's right, and by what authority? Also, how does a
larger capo radius accelerate capo wear by not allowing the string to have a
precise pivot? That doesn't make any sense to me at all and I'd like it
explained. How can a longer support area for a given load, on a given
footprint width, result in accelerated wear of the support? This is contrary
to logic as I know it. How does this work? Let's backtrack and plug a few
holes before we hotly dispute anything else, what do you say?  

 Ron N