[CAUT] WAPIN INSTALLATION: LIVE!

[Tim Coates]

Doesn't explain why a two pin Wapin configuration works just as well as 
the Wapin three pin configuration.  Two pin configuration has the same 
mass as a traditional pinning.

We prefer the Wapin three pin configuration for margin of safety.  The 
safety is the undo criticism from techs who find any little aspect to 
find fault.  It really doesn't matter for any other reason.  And yes, 
stability tests have been done.

Tim Coates

On Nov 4, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Joe And Penny Goss wrote:

> Ponder this, what if simply adding the extra pin is adding mass and the
> cause for the tonal change.
> Joe Goss RPT
> Mother Goose Tools
> imatunr at srvinet.com
> www.mothergoosetools.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "RicB" <ricb at pianostemmer.no>
> To: <caut at ptg.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 1:36 PM
> Subject: [CAUT] WAPIN INSTALLATION: LIVE!
>
>
>> Tim, Jim, and others.
>>
>> Jim does of course make a good point about the difficulty in testing.
>> Tho I am unsure about the usefulness of his proposed test procedure
>> itself in the sense that I dont think anyone is going to actually
>> proceed in that fashion.
>>
>> Nor, do I think is that necessary. One can go about this from a more
>> statistics oriented angle.  If it can be shown that the same kinds of
>> characteristics show up time and time again the point of being
>> statistically significant and beyond... given a large enough 
>> sampling...
>> then one pretty much has to go along with the suggestion that the
>> alteration has an affect.
>>
>> It is correct that nearly anything you do can corrupt a single
>> experiments validity. I'm sure one could actually pick apart the
>> alternating string idea for that matter. That does not necessarily
>> eliminate the value of any such testing as Mark is offering.  The
>> experience will no doubt be enlightening despite the fact that 
>> whatever
>> results must be seen with skepticism from a purely scientific point of
>> view.
>>
>> We deal in sound and subjective qualification of sound as much as we
>> deal in anything else.  We can no more go forward from a purely
>> scientific stance then we can ignore scientific perspective.  A 
>> healthy
>> mix lies in between somewhere and acceptance of a certain degree of
>> uncertainty is an absolute.
>>
>> I'm reminded of the "tests" used to "prove" that ETD tunings were just
>> as good as the best ear tunings.  Funny how no one ever tried to
>> ascertain if there were actually people who were capable of telling 
>> the
>> difference.  The tests were designed to only find out how many could
>> not.   And indeed... very very many could not. So many one could not
>> ignore those numbers.  On the other hand... if you did find (by 
>> looking)
>> a group of individuals out there that nearly 100 % of the time could
>> identify an ETD tuning by ear... I wonder how this would affect our
>> opinions of them.... just a thought on.... er... scientific method :)
>>
>> Cheers
>> RicB
>>
>>
>