Hi Calin, Cy.. lots of points so I'll just comment on one for the time being. I'm not entirely sure what exactly you mean in the below and the corresponding part of your article. What I'm hanging onto is the basic impedance match between string and the bridge. This is a pretty complicated affair when you start mixing in the relative strengths of partials. Perhaps its just the wording that trips "which are much stiffer and transmit high frequency vibration better") The inference being that the wood surface damps higher frequencies earlier. That would mean that if you constructed two bridges of equal mass... the only difference being the stiffness of each... then you could observe the same result. I'm not really sure this is the case... but then I havent really thought about it much either. In anycase I'm not comfortable with the word transmit here. The stiffer and more massy a termination is... the less it transmits of vibrational energy through it. It will rather reflect this energy back through the input source (strings) typically increasing sustain and lowering output amplitude. I'd assumed the filter was to minimize the audible effects of loss of energy to the termination itself... much like braiding a front duplex to quite capo noise. Cheers RicB > This seems to counter your original assumption about standard bridge pins, namely that the wood cap allows high frequencies to pass through, where > bridge agraffes do not. Is that what you meant? It actually supports my assumptions. Wood caps are weaker and more flexible than a bridge agraffe. So a bridge agraffe can be TOO EFFICIENT, in that it can make higher partials audible than what you'd get with standard bridge pins. Some of these higher partials are not always desireable (especially above the 7th). That's why they use the filter, to "tune" the harmonic content.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC