Agraffe vs capo

[Farrell]

Del said: "I'm not sure which is inherently superior though I expect the
scale is tipped toward a well designed capo d'astro bar system, though not
necessarily with a V-bar."

Please help me understand "V-Bar". Are you referring to the shape of the
termination point on the bottom of the capo d'astro bar? The few I have seen
appear to be just simply a bit rounded. What types are there?

Phillip said: "How do you feel about the system that Chickering used for a
time.  A capo bar with half agraffes screwed to the underside.  I always
felt that this system combined the best of both worlds."

The small Knabe grand I am working on in my shop right now has these. Seems
like a really slick system. When I had the keybed out, I was able to observe
this system while strung!

Terry Farrell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillip L Ford" <fordpiano@lycos.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 11:38 PM
Subject: Agraffe vs capo

>
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:06:31
>  Delwin D Fandrich wrote:
> >
> >  ----- Original Message -----
> >  From: Farrell
> >  To: pianotech@ptg.org
> >  Sent: June 24, 2001 10:07 AM
> >  Subject: Re: Agraffe tuning eaiser or not?
> >
> >
> >  Could you please expand on exactly what do you mean when you speak of
the poor string termination of the capo d'astro bar configuration. What is
poor about it?
> >Just that it is usually rather inefficient. The length of the duplex
segment (relative to the speaking length) and the rather shallow string
deflection angles always allow some energy bleed across the V-bar.
>
> ----------------------------
> Would you advocate shorter duplex lengths and greater string deflection
angles to keep more energy in the speaking length?  What values would you
propose?  Do you think there would be tuning problems as a result of this?
I have tuned pianos with greater than 'normal' string angles at the capo and
they didn't render very well.  Would this be exaggerated by shorter duplex
lengths?
> ----------------------------
> >
> >
> >  How does it compare to the agraffe? I understand (I think I might
anyway) about energy losses associated with aliquot systems, but what is
inherently or potentially bad/inefficient about the capo design compared to
the agraffe design. Thanks for any thoughts you may have on this.
> >The agraffe also has some energy losses due to their flexibility and
their relatively low mass compared to the capo d'astro bar. So, to some
extent I think you pays your money and takes your chances. I now believe
both systems can be made in such a way that they might be quite inefficient
or quite efficient. I'm not sure which is inherently superior though I
expect the scale is tipped toward a well designed capo d'astro bar system,
though not necessarily with a V-bar. And certainly not with the string
deflection angles and duplex lengths we've come to expect in the modern
piano.
>
> ---------------------
> Would you give some examples of what the differences might be between an
efficient and inefficient agraffe system and between an efficient and
inefficient capo system?
> ----------------------
>
>
> >
> >I'm also not sure the benifits of this ideal system would be so much
greater than than a really well designed agraffe system as to be all that
noticable. We do tend to get hung up on the esoteric that the obvious slips
right on by.
>
> ------------------------
> How do you feel about the system that Chickering used for a time.  A capo
bar with half agraffes screwed to the underside.  I always felt that this
system combined the best of both worlds.
> ------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >  Oh, and thanks to Brain Trout, I found your soundboard papers on the
Journal CD - these are the ones you refer to that start in December 1997?
> >
> >That sounds about right. I really didn't keep track of the publication
dates and all my Journals are temporarily unreachable.
> >
> >Del
> >
> >
>
> Phil Ford
>
>
> Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
> http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/