>> >Consider: >>> >>>The Stuart bridge agraffes steer the string excursion in the vertical >>>direction for better tone and longer sustain. >>> >>>The Wapin bridge modification steers the string excursion in the >>>horizontal direction for better tone and longer sustain. >>> >>>Ron N >> >>------------- >>I think that anybody that thinks he is 'steering' the string vibration one >>way or another is kidding himself. >> >>Phil Ford > > >I can't say one way or another. I just thought it interesting that >the two approaches both claim similar benefits from opposite >approaches to string termination at the bridge. > >Ron N I agree. I'm not sure that either of them can achieve their claimed behavior, but at least the Wapin claim makes sense. The Stuart claim doesn't make sense to me. Assuming that you could limit string vibration to a vertical plane, then a higher rate of energy transfer from the string to the bridge would be the result, which doesn't equate to longer sustain. Which is not to say that both string termination methods have no effect on the tone. I imagine that they do. And they may affect the relative strengths of the horizontal and vertical vibration, and the rate of transfer between the two modes. But I don't think either method will succeed in confining string vibration to one plane. If Wapin thinks that a better tone or sustain results from a higher percentage of horizontal vibrations, then perhaps they should design an action in which the hammers strike the strings at an angle to the string plane so that the string is driven sideways as well as up by the hammer blow. Phil Ford
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC