Hey Joe The thing is you see... I started off by simply replacing with undersized pins that were loose in their entire respective pin holes... and that changed the situation. That in itself clearly points out that something else (at least) is also at work besides the loose pin issue. Otherwise all three would display false beats... and certainly nothing would improve... but 2 of 3 did improve... one of these completely. Then, coming to the soaked bridge pin holes. The only thing that was essentially different in this before and after scenario is that the wood around the bridge pin holes had been saturated as far as the CA could penetrate. I suppose its easy enough to figure out how much that is in a mock up... but I haven't done so...yet :) In any case, the old pins went back in every bit as easy (if not more so) then they came out. The whole problem with idea that the bridge pin alone is the support for the string is ... well. first of it ignores that the <<support>> also has a support as it were. That in itself is (should be) enough to point in the direction that the whole thing is more complicated then a simple single loose pin. Then too... is the fact that the string vibrates in virtually every possible direction... and that the phase shift that is in the end responsible for the beat can be likewise observed in all directions. As cleaning up the notching is concerned. The notching and string grooves were unchanged... I made sure and not fill up to the brim as it were. Whatever soaked into the top area of the bridge pin holes did so from wicking up from below. Transfering vibrations to the back side of the bridge eh ??.. I haven't really thought much along these lines... But when you first mention it... the bridge is not infinitely (or even close to it) stiff or massive. On some micro level what you suggest may happen along with all else that happens. The bridge is moveing around in all directions along with the rest of the string termination and the string itself... some more easily then others. And its not like the bridge wood is equally dense... stiff...massive... whatever through out its entire interiour. The area very close to the pin seems critical when it comes to false beating. But it definitely seems very much involved. But thats just my take on it. I've never been one to accept conventional wisdom at face value without further ado. Regardless of where any given convention comes from. I've looked at this time and time again and two things seem obvious. 1: CA works... for whatever reason... no doubt about it. 2: Its simply got to be a lot more complicated then the loose pin idea allows for. Cheers RicB Hi Ric, Could it be that the CA, in addition to curing the looseness of the pin problem, also eases the transfer of vibrations across the bridge to the back segments, as well as cleanes up the notching? Joe Goss RPT > I agree that the addition of CA cleans up a lot of the classic false > beat... but I remain very unconvinced as to why. Couldnt resist doing > my own experiment when I read the first post on this thread. I took > three very badly beating strings on 30 year old Petrof that responded to > the screwdriver pressure, loosened the string and removed the pins. > First I put in very undersized new pins and tuned up again.... 2 of the > three false beats got way cleaner... one came out perfectly clean... the > third was about the same. Then I removed the strings again and with > the undersized pins still in soaked the holes with CA... I mean I really > soaked them suckers. I waited about 10 minutes and pulled the > undersized pins which and reamed out the holes to their origional size. > Then put back in the original pins. Replaced strings, tuned up and all > three were clean as a whistle. Strikes me that the addition of CA is > affecting the wood itself more then anything else. > > Cheers > RicB >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC