This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Calin. I really dont see there is any physical impediment to making the surface area of the bridge wider so that a longer segment of the string comes in contact with the bridge anywhere along its length. Unless you are saying that the speaking length of the string required the front notch to be where it is, and the lack of a dogleg then forces a shorter contact segment ? That would make sense I suppose... so then, you are saying they did this to avoid using a dogleg in the bridge itself ?... Ok.. :) whats the benifit of avoiding the dogleg then ? Cheers RicB Calin Tantareanu wrote: >I still think it's because of the bridge having no dogleg. There's simply no >room for the larger contact area, so they made it smaller. Seems obvious to >me. >But if you can find another explanation, please tell us. > > > > > > >>Hmm.. not sure we are on the same page here. I mean the width of the >>contact area of the bridge along the length of the stringss. There is a >>very marked gradual changing in this width, expecially noticeble in the >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > > > ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment --------------080404050103040509060009 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/bb/ac/a0/29/attachment.htm --------------080404050103040509060009 A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: moz-screenshot.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 79752 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/f6/5f/0e/a6/moz-screenshot.jpg --------------080404050103040509060009-- ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC