Aha! This is the answer I was searching for. In fact it even did a lightbulb routine above my head during breakfast this morning. Reading your response just confirmed that what I had realized actually made sense. The problem isn't that we are limited to only one axis of termination at the agraffe/capo bar, it's the reason why we are forced into having two at the bridge. The bearing at the agraffe/capo bar is aggressive enough to define a positive termination point. But at the bridge we can't have that much "down" bearing due to the fact that it would flatten out the soundboard and prevent it from vibrating. So, with the need for lower downbearing at the bridge adequate termination is not possible without some help. Therefore, in order to create a definite termination at the bridge the use of two pins to put that "S" kink, or clamp, in the string was developed. This clamping provides a sideways bearing that's pretty much equivalent to the bearing already present at the agraffe/capo bar. Now we have good termination, but we are now also stuck with two axis of termination. One against the side of the pin and one against the notch in the bridge. Hence the need to be careful that both those axis are in alignment. Physics can be pretty cool sometimes. Thanks to all for the replies. -- Geoff Sykes, Los Angeles -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Farrell Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:04 AM To: Pianotech List Subject: Re: String termination question I'll stick my neck out here and speculate on a direct answer to Geoff's original question of why we need a two-plane termination at the bridge and only one at the capo/agraffe. Is it not because at the capo/agraffe, we can easily have as much of a counterbearing angle as needed to provide adequate clamping of the string to the termination up there. However, on the bridge, the counterbearing angle (or backscale or downbearing angle) is restricted by soundboard performance needs and is usually rather small. So the small backscale simply does not provide for sufficient downward string force into the bridge - so we need to provide a clamping mechanism. In other words, the front termination is self-clamping because of the large force of the string on the termination point created by the string tension and the large counterbearing angle. The bridge termination requires a manual clamp (offset bridge pins) of some type because of the small force of the string on the termination point (bridge) created by the string tension and the small counterbearing/backscale/downbearing angle. And of course, there may be more reasons, but it seems to me this basic difference in string pressure on the termination points is reason enough to go to something like what we see in most pianos. Even the bridges with agraffes have similar needs & features. Ron? Terry Farrell ----- Original Message ----- I made the mistake of thinking the other day, and I started wondering why piano strings are terminated at the bridge on both the X and Y axis but at the capo bar, or agraffe, on only the X, (or perhaps that's Y depending on how you are looking at it), axis. We go to lengths to make sure the strings are seated properly at the bridge so that there is a definite and precise termination in both planes at the bridge and bridge pin. Why then is the lack of termination in both planes not a problem at the agraffe and capo bar end? -- Geoff Sykes, Los Angeles ----- Original Message ----- >> I don't think the primary purpose of a bridge pin is to prevent the >> string from sliding around on top of the bridge. > > The pins serve two functions. They are the string termination, and > they > clamp the string to the bridge. SNIP > Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC