Counter bearing treatment

[Richard Brekne]

Newton Hunt wrote:

> Dear Richard, and incidentally list,
>
> Have you opened a can of worms!!!
>
> OK let's look at a couple of things here.
>
> > I am not sure if the geometries of where the tuning pins have to be
>
> Good termination of speaking lengths are defined by the angles of
> deflection of the strings from the primary termination, v-bar, capo
> bar or agraffe or agraffe pins.
>
> On upright termination is done through the use of pressure bars.  The
> deflection should be only enough to prevent the strings from dancing
> on the v-bar during a hard blow.  More deflection is undesirable
> because the string renders poorly.
>
> On grands the string deflection is provided by bars or felts behind
> the agraffes or capo bars.  Same criteria applies.
>

Fine and Dandy Newton.. as far as it goes... what I'd like to know is what the trade off is concerning energy leakage from
the speaking length through the termination point. I know some of this is determined by the profile of the termination
point itself, and some about the tradeoffs there., but how does the angle of the string deflecting away from the
termination point affect energy leakage... For that matter, how does use of differeing hardness of these half rounds (or
other solutions like Steinways in the treble) come into play. And how does these affect inharmonicity ?

I have a few instruments with... hyper active front duplexes, and I'd like to do something about it without simply muting
off.

Richard Brekne
I.C.P.T.G.  N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway