Jon Page wrote: > >A bit. What in the world do cast in front duplex lengths have to do > with any of this > > If raising bridge height has a consequence of a higher string height > then is the > consequence of a lower bridge height a result of a curved string > termination on the plate > and lower string height in the high treble. Curved string termination? Raising the treble bridge height and string height to accommodate shouldn't affect the counter bearing. >I thought not addressing an > even string height > was to maintain the front duplex spec measurements/angle. No. It's to make hammer boring and action regulation less complicated. > Why not grind the v-bar to develop an even string height and raise the > counter bearings > to maintain counter bearing angle and duplex length (if so desired). Why not cast a new plate? The whole point of this was the correlation between treble bridge height, bridge stiffness, and tone production. The fact that raising treble bridge height in Steinways also makes the uneven string height less bad, and hammer boring less complicated is a happy bonus. > Since it is purported that a taller bridge has an improved tonal effect > and close tolerance > action dimensional measurements contribute to an even action then it > must be concluded > that the cast-in front duplex is what Moses carried off the Mount > cast-in stone and all else > must be sacrificed. > > Regards, > > Jon Page So it's purported. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC