And yet - Gordon, you may be correct about there being a better way, but, in fairness, that would be a different thread....perhaps a continuation of Sohmer agraffes or Stuart, etc. The reason I titled this thread "morphing back to Revisited" is that I was trying to tie in the Lowell discussion with one that stopped, earlier this month, without reaching a possible conclusion. I don't consider the current discussion to be bickering, and I've tried to stay safely away from questions regarding bridge motion, as, at this point, only hard data should be brought to bear on that discussion. No insult intended. It's just hard staying on topic, even when it is technical and related. David Skolnik, RPT, DBH -At 07:32 PM 2/24/2004 +0100, you wrote: >gordon stelter wrote: >>Whether the string is primarily vibrating the bridge >>top for and aft rapidly, as I believe, or waving it up >>and down, as some others believe, a serious "clamping" >>of the string to the bridge surface, which still >>allows for sliding during tuning, is important. I belive that the >>traditional arrangement does a >>pretty good job of this. But there's something itching >>in me that says there must be a beter way. One which >>does not create bridge top deformation, loose pins OR >>sounboard collapse. > >I think most of use have had this itch. Perhaps thats the main impetus >behind the bridge agraffe grail ? > >> Perhaps if we stop bickering and pout our noggins >>together, we can all come up with something. > >Grin.... Alice been feeding you those funny mushrooms again there Thumpy ?? > >>.......... >> Thump >Cheers >RicB >_______________________________________________ >pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC