This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment "The question, of course, is why the capo d'astro bar configuration has = become such a dominate standard throughout the industry." Mr. Fandrich, I'm surprised at your ignorance of the history of piano = design. Does it really require a beginner to explain this to you? The = answer, of course is that Steinway does it. So everyone else that builds = pianos needs to do it. Seriously though, this was a real interesting post. Made me get real = excited about my upcoming rebuild/redesign of my 1900 6' Bechstein with = all agraffes (big thick rascals). Could you please expand on exactly = what do you mean when you speak of the poor string termination of the = capo d'astro bar configuration. What is poor about it? How does it = compare to the agraffe? I understand (I think I might anyway) about = energy losses associated with aliquot systems, but what is inherently or = potentially bad/inefficient about the capo design compared to the = agraffe design. Thanks for any thoughts you may have on this. Oh, and thanks to Brain Trout, I found your soundboard papers on the = Journal CD - these are the ones you refer to that start in December = 1997? Terry Farrell =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Delwin D Fandrich=20 To: pianotech@ptg.org=20 Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Agraffe tuning eaiser or not? ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Jarred Finnigan=20 To: PTG=20 Sent: June 19, 2001 11:40 PM Subject: Agraffe tuning eaiser or not? I would love to get some responses to this post and maybe some = thoughts on the pros and cons of the use of agraffes as opposed to v = bar, pressure bar. Remember I am talking about the tuning ease and = stability in a new piano using agraffes, worn agraffes, well that's a = whole other story.=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Jarred, The question, of course, is why the capo d'astro bar configuration has = become such a dominate standard throughout the industry.=20 Little of any real technical merit was written about the transition in = the early works, but the reasons for the transition seem to boil down to = just two: 1) The difficulty of getting the hammer strike point correct = through the upper treble when using agraffes, even the overhanging = agraffe. And, 2) the idea that the extra mass of the capo d'astro would = help conserve some of the energy otherwise lost to either to the = non-rigidity of the agraffe or to the plate through the upper tenor and = treble region where sustain and power have long been a problem.=20 Companies like Sohmer and Heintzman took this idea to its illogical = extreme when they connected the capo d'astro bar with the plate pinblock = panel. It was also the idea behind the development of the Baldwin string = termination piece used in the SF-10 and SD-10 pianos. Each of these = pieces is screwed to the plate flange and to the capo d'astro bar, = effectively mass-coupling the two together.=20 For the most part, of course, any energy savings due to the added mass = of the capo d'astro bar are lost--and then some--by the inclusion of a = tuned aliquot string design which introduces a whole new set of = intentional energy losses. Or by the inherently inefficient string = termination of the Baldwin design.=20 Which leaves us with the question, are any of these energy losses real = enough and/or significant enough to warrant the wholesale transition = from one type to the other? (Assuming that careful design and = construction has made finding the correct hammer strike point possible.) = I can only speak from our own experience, but based on the performance = of several pianos using the all-agraffe design that we've completed = recently, I'd have to say--for me, at least--the jury is still out. One = piano I'm watching with some interest is an old Geo. Steck which now has = a fully redesigned soundboard and rib set along with a revised = tenor/treble bridge. (Bass bridge too, but that's not relevant to this = discussion.) This piano has agraffes through C-88 and they are not even = of the more massive overhung design. Yet the acoustic power of this = piano will easily compete with any other piano of the same length using = the more common capo d'astro design. (I still own the piano and have = been able to observe it for several years as it is regularly used in = performance.) We have done several other pianos using the overhung = agraffe design and found the results to be similar. When the soundboard = design is working and the piano is given a reasonable stringing scale = through the treble, the all-agraffe system seems to work quite well. = Which leads me to believe many of the problems our early builders = thought they were having with the all-agraffe string termination system = actually lay with their soundboard designs.=20 I don't have anything close to a definitive answer here, just some = observations. But those observations have taken me from being convinced = that the capo d'astro bar/V-bar system was the inherently superior = system (as I was taught), to accepting that the all-agraffe system has = much merit (as I have observed).=20 I'm sure there are some energy losses inherent to the less solid and = less massive agraffe termination, but those losses may be compensated = for by the typically better string termination geometry common to these = designs. I'm also sure that most of the problems with the tone = performance found through the upper tenor and treble sections of the = modern piano lie with the traditional design and construction of the = soundboard and rib system, with their typically erratic scale designs, = and with the losses introduced by inefficient string termination = regardless of the design used.=20 Personally, I'd be willing to give the all-agraffe system a chance. = How does the piano sound? In this case, how does the piano tune? Does = the piano meet the buyers needs and emotional desires? Has the customer = had the chance to play the piano for an hour or two? Does it work with = the music he/she typically plays?=20 If the piano passes these tests I would suggest that the customer = ignore the tuner who doesn't like tuning the piano, purchase the piano = he/she likes playing and hire someone to tune it and service it who = isn't prejudiced against the design. I have observed that those--mostly = those from the technical community--who are convinced that a certain = design feature is 'best' will continue to believe so even after it has = been demonstrated that a piano built some other way actually gives = better performance. Prejudice has nothing to do with reality. Del ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/40/8c/47/b9/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC