Been following along this whole thread with lots of interest and couldnt help throwing into the wash (from afar and with a decided delay) that this whole line of reasoning begins to stir up that "Magic Circle" wash that a few of us have heard from the Steinway camp. I wonder tho, just how it is that energy leakage through the front termination, evnt. counterbearings, through the pins, into the plate via the pinblock is supposed to increase power. Would seem to me that such a leakage would be more an acoustical shunt then anything else. Anyone care to explain the "logic" of this idea ? larudee@pacbell.net wrote: > Another point to consider is that only a small proportion of the string energy is going > to reach the front flange and pin block area of the plate. If everything is working > right, most of it will be absorbed through the bridge, and the next largest portion > partly reflected and partly absorbed by the capo bar. Only a small remainder will get > through to flange and pin block. > > Even if it does work as intended, we need to remember that the tuning pins are 3 or 4 > times farther above the pin block in a closed design and that string tension is > therefore exerting that much more leverage upon them. To the extent that string energy > might be absorbed by the pinblock/plate in an open face design, wouldn't it be at least > as likely to be absorbed by the flex of the tuning pins in a closed design? -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC