Agraffe tuning eaiser or not?

[Delwin D Fandrich]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

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

  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Jarred Finnigan=20
  To: PTG=20
  Sent: June 19, 2001 11:40 PM
  Subject: Agraffe tuning eaiser or not?


  I would love to get some responses to this post and maybe some =
thoughts on the pros and cons of the use of agraffes as opposed to v =
bar, pressure bar.  Remember I am talking about the tuning ease and =
stability in a new piano using agraffes, worn agraffes, well that's a =
whole other story.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----


Jarred,

The question, of course, is why the capo d'astro bar configuration has =
become such a dominate standard throughout the industry.=20

Little of any real technical merit was written about the transition in =
the early works, but the reasons for the transition seem to boil down to =
just two: 1) The difficulty of getting the hammer strike point correct =
through the upper treble when using agraffes, even the overhanging =
agraffe. And, 2) the idea that the extra mass of the capo d'astro would =
help conserve some of the energy otherwise lost to either to the =
non-rigidity of the agraffe or to the plate through the upper tenor and =
treble region where sustain and power have long been a problem.=20

Companies like Sohmer and Heintzman took this idea to its illogical =
extreme when they connected the capo d'astro bar with the plate pinblock =
panel. It was also the idea behind the development of the Baldwin string =
termination piece used in the SF-10 and SD-10 pianos. Each of these =
pieces is screwed to the plate flange and to the capo d'astro bar, =
effectively mass-coupling the two together.=20

For the most part, of course, any energy savings due to the added mass =
of the capo d'astro bar are lost--and then some--by the inclusion of a =
tuned aliquot string design which introduces a whole new set of =
intentional energy losses. Or by the inherently inefficient string =
termination of the Baldwin design.=20

Which leaves us with the question, are any of these energy losses real =
enough and/or significant enough to warrant the wholesale transition =
from one type to the other? (Assuming that careful design and =
construction has made finding the correct hammer strike point possible.) =
I can only speak from our own experience, but based on the performance =
of several pianos using the all-agraffe design that we've completed =
recently, I'd have to say--for me, at least--the jury is still out. One =
piano I'm watching with some interest is an old Geo. Steck which now has =
a fully redesigned soundboard and rib set along with a revised =
tenor/treble bridge. (Bass bridge too, but that's not relevant to this =
discussion.) This piano has agraffes through C-88 and they are not even =
of the more massive overhung design. Yet the acoustic power of this =
piano will easily compete with any other piano of the same length using =
the more common capo d'astro design. (I still own the piano and have =
been able to observe it for several years as it is regularly used in =
performance.) We have done several other pianos using the overhung =
agraffe design and found the results to be similar. When the soundboard =
design is working and the piano is given a reasonable stringing scale =
through the treble, the all-agraffe system seems to work quite well. =
Which leads me to believe many of the problems our early builders =
thought they were having with the all-agraffe string termination system =
actually lay with their soundboard designs.=20

I don't have anything close to a definitive answer here, just some =
observations. But those observations have taken me from being convinced =
that the capo d'astro bar/V-bar system was the inherently superior =
system (as I was taught), to accepting that the all-agraffe system has =
much merit (as I have observed).=20

I'm sure there are some energy losses inherent to the less solid and =
less massive agraffe termination, but those losses may be compensated =
for by the typically better string termination geometry common to these =
designs. I'm also sure that most of the problems with the tone =
performance found through the upper tenor and treble sections of the =
modern piano lie with the traditional design and construction of the =
soundboard and rib system, with their typically erratic scale designs, =
and with the losses introduced by inefficient string termination =
regardless of the design used.=20

Personally, I'd be willing to give the all-agraffe system a chance. How =
does the piano sound? In this case, how does the piano tune? Does the =
piano meet the buyers needs and emotional desires? Has the customer had =
the chance to play the piano for an hour or two? Does it work with the =
music he/she typically plays?=20

If the piano passes these tests I would suggest that the customer ignore =
the tuner who doesn't like tuning the piano, purchase the piano he/she =
likes playing and hire someone to tune it and service it who isn't =
prejudiced against the design. I have observed that those--mostly those =
from the technical community--who are convinced that a certain design =
feature is 'best' will continue to believe so even after it has been =
demonstrated that a piano built some other way actually gives better =
performance. Prejudice has nothing to do with reality.

Del

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/d2/2b/5c/36/attachment.htm

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