Stringing Braid and the perception of doing it right

[Ron Nossaman]

> > Manufacturers can't do that. They have to specify
> > that braid goes to points somewhat beyond the statistically likely problem
> > areas and get on with it, even if it means damping back scales that
> > wouldn't have been a problem being left open.
>
>Why?

It's been proven repeatedly that you can't legislate (or even define) good 
sense, nor can you spend excess time on the minutiae when you have 
thousands more to build, so you draw a line, specify an absolute, and get 
on to the next one. There's enough variation from piano to piano that 
there's no way of knowing beforehand exactly where the braiding is 
necessary, so it's zoned.


>sorry Ron..you were open for that one.

No offense - fire away.


>I really want to understand this.
>
>This piano I just got done with (Baldwin E..similar to the 'R' in size) just
>doesn't howl..and it's not getting new dampers or new hammer, and both are
>OEM. .. not MY choice .. i'm just the laborer on this job.
>
>-Phil Bondi (Fl.)

Then if it ain't broke, I agree there's no point in fixing it with braid 
just because it had braid originally. I don't see anything wrong with 
making conscious decisions about our methods, whenever possible. We are 
told repeatedly that the ear is the final arbiter, so what's wrong with 
accepting the ear's judgement? Seems to me there ought to be some 
continuity in our approaches and attitudes.

This is fundamentally no different from any of the more extreme deviations 
some of us prefer to make in existing piano designs. The intent in all 
cases is to try to understand what is happening, eliminate the 
counterproductive "features", and make the piano perform as well as we can 
from what we have to work with. By not putting that braid back in, you have 
crossed the line.

Ron N