---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Following up: My observations do not confirm the presence of significant grooving =20 on the bridge, no evidence of aggressive string seating, just some =20 scuffing as the route of the string over the bridge changed. Try this =20= view and note that the damage to the bridge is more obvious: http://tinyurl.com/dkjo2 https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/files/attachments/9f/c1/94/30/dscn1194.jpg I'm still convinced that the high angle of string off the backscale =20 side of the bridge is a source of the damage. The pins along the =20 speaking length side of the bridge do not show significant movement. http://tinyurl.com/7jr3m https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/files/attachments/5b/74/6f/a4/dscn1199.jpg The difference in string deflection angles is presently somewhere =20 around 6 degrees. Speaking length angle about 12 degrees, and back =20 scale angle about 18 degrees. I have a hard time believing that =20 amount is insignificant, and in any case, whatever the difference is =20 now, the difference was originally much greater than what it is now. http://tinyurl.com/7chcu http://tinyurl.com/dzpz4 https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/files/attachments/8c/a1/4c/b3/dscn1205.jpg https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/files/attachments/56/32/bf/df/dscn1206.jpg Kent On Sep 22, 2005, at 8:22 AM, David Love wrote: > Judging from this picture the severe indentation and the slightly =20 > angled indentation that leads to the new string position, it =20 > appears as if the migrating pins were caused by very aggressive =20 > string seating. In other words, someone actually banged the string =20= > down so hard at the pin that they moved the pin. If that=92s the =20 > case, then it=92s not likely that the pins will keep moving =20 > (especially since some of the lateral force is being taken up by =20 > the bridge cap itself and the groove in which the string is =20 > riding. I haven=92t really followed this thread from the start, but =20= > termination have to be compromised, it would seem. I=92m not sure I =20= > follow how this would effect the crown of the soundboard. > > > David Love > davidlovepianos@comcast.net > > > <image001.jpg> > > > > ------------ > > On Sep 21, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Ron Nossaman wrote: > > > The bridge will probably be OK, especially as that angle self > > corrects, but the net side bearing is what I'd be concerned about. > > The strings are trying to pull the bridge left. I'd be looking for > > concave crown and a killer killer octave pretty quickly, maybe as > > soon as a couple of months if the climate control lets the RH get > > below 35%. > > Fascinating. The piano has a dual-tank Dampp-Chaser with undercover. > It really hadn't occurred to me that this alignment might cause > soundboard problems. I was just worried about the bridge, still am, > and have seen this configuration on many S&S instruments. I guess > I'll be re-checking the crown as I service the DC over time. > > Thanks. > > > Did the restring include lowering the plate? > > No. > > ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/71/f9/82/c1/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC