Del, I have a few questions about your post. Please see comments embedded in text. -- On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 09:04:06 Delwin D Fandrich wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jarred Finnigan > To: PTG > 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. > >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. > >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. > ------------------ Why do you say that the Sohmer and Heintzman designs are taken to an illogical extreme? I haven't heard a broad sampling of these pianos but of the ones that I have heard I thought the top ends were pretty nice. I attributed that partly to the connected capo. ------------------ >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. ------------------ It seems that there is going to be some inevitable 'leakage' past the capo bar or agraffe. So the string portion on the side of the capo opposite the speaking length is going to be moving. You say that energy is being lost by having a tuned aliquot design. Do you feel that less energy would be lost by having a detuned aliquot design or by having this section damped out (felted out) altogether? Why is the Baldwin design inherently inefficient? ------------------- Phil Ford Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC