On 6/15/2012 8:36 AM, jim at grandpianosolutions.com wrote: > So my question: to what degree is the Capo termination hardness and > shape targeting a specific tonal result, as opposed to adhering to > geometrical necessity or limititations of allowable string abuse at the > termination? Hi Jim, I'd guess you didn't get a learned response because the question is pretty much unanswerable. My call is that of all the vast number of grand pianos manufactured and rebuilt, redesigned or not, a vanishingly small number of them are having the agraffes and capo either shaped or hardened toward a specific tonal result. Rebuilders typically reshape the V in an attempt to keep the front tuned duplexes quiet, with varying degrees of temporary success. I'd say that unless you're willing to make hard agraffes yourself as Ron O is doing, there's little point in hardening the V bar. The difference of softness of the termination at the transition between the soft brass agraffe and the harder capo isn't mentioned as a voicing problem - ever, that I recall. So why make the hardness difference even greater by hardening the capo? I've found that an efficient soundboard adds considerably to the treble tone, with the conversion of the tuned front duplex to a brass half round making front duplex lengths too short to be noisy. So many deeply anal detail processes are chased in rebuilding and service that don't seem to make much if any discernible difference in the finished product, that I continually wonder why the minutia is so relentlessly pursued, as rebuilders replace bass strings with duplicates of the original poor scale, and do nothing to address the real causes of noisy front duplexes and dead soundboards in the treble. I never did get it. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC