Article about bridge agraffes - function, types

[Ron Overs]

>>Just curious Ron, what is your reasoning for three points of string 
>>contact (front, center and rear) rather than two? Two would bind 
>>the string up in some desired way. I can see that three points 
>>would lock the string in much more firmly. But two could also - 
>>much like the forward termination on most pianos whether it is an 
>>agraffe or the capo bar.
>>
>>Terry Farrell
>>
>>(Not really trying to suggest anything here - just trying to understand.....)
>
>Just the elimination of torque (forward or backward) on the bridge, 
>that a two bearing point agraffe would necessarily impart. That's 
>it. The other concern was leaving the fore/aft bearing point low 
>enough to not have to detrimentally shorten bridge height (thus 
>detrimentally compromising bridge stiffness) to accommodate the 
>agraffe. Simple minded, definitely, but that's how I approach 
>everything.
>Ron N

Hi Terry and Ron,

I share your reasoning entirely Ron N. I've held the same 
reservations about the the single offset version, and the reduction 
of bridge height that results when the double offset version runs the 
other way, as some current practitioners are prone to do.

That workshop of your's is far too tidy to get anything done Terry. 
You realise that a tidy workshop is a sign of a dysfunctional mind!

Ron O
-- 
OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY
    Grand Piano Manufacturers
_______________________

Web http://overspianos.com.au
mailto:ron at overspianos.com.au
_______________________