Agraffes in uprights

[Ron Nossaman]

>> I seriously doubt there is any real performance benefit to 
>> agraffes anywhere in the scale of a vertical piano.
> 
> I am not willing to concede that agraffes in uprights are of no performance
> benefit.  To isolate a single variable and test its worth is of some value.
> But, if this method reveals no benefit, it has not conclusively proven that
> it is, in fact, of no benefit.  

I didn't say a thing about conclusive proof. I said I have 
serious doubt, which is an opinion based on what experience I 
have.


>After all, the difference between a good piano and a
> great piano can rarely be attributed to one or two aspects of its design,
> but rather the right combination of a great many aspects of its design.

I agree, with such things as the use of agraffes being far 
down in the damage control portion of the program after the 
string scale, bridge, layout, structure, and soundboard design 
have already mostly defined the limits of potential you have 
to work with.


>> Bichord unison lengths can be accommodated easily enough by bridge 
>> notching, and are less critical that low in the scale in any case. 
> 
> Yes, equal lengths in the bichord range can be accomplished by the bridge
> notching.  I know, because I have done it, but I would not say it can be
> done easily.  The notches must be at such a severe angle, in relation to
> the contour of the bridge, that one notch intrudes upon the next.  The only
> way to make this work is to minimize the space between the two strings of
> each unison, and increase the space between unisons.  This results in
> extending the over all length of the bass bridge, and increasing the
> "flare" in the string angles along the bass bridge.   This, in turn,
> requires changes in the plate to accommodate the longer bass bridge.  The
> end result is a very odd looking bass bridge.  "Less critical that low in
> the scale?"  Maybe so, but I am not willing to blow off any little benefit
> that, in combination with others, might make a real difference.

Fair enough. So all those pianos you designed before marketing 
just recently started lobbying for agraffes had either 
mismatched speaking lengths in the bichord unisons, or funny 
looking bass bridges? Seems to me that for this serious a 
problem, it should have been you lobbying management all along 
for the inclusion of agraffes, long before marketing dreamed 
it up.


> While it is possible to make the center string of three-string unisons
> perfectly in line with the speaking length, the outside strings need to be
> compromised a little to optimize the clearance of strings and tuning pins
> over the pinblock.  While for the most part, I don't think this is a
> serious problem, when things get really "tight" at the low end of the tenor
> section, agraffes might reinforce the string spacing enough to be of
> benefit.

Yes, it might. Has this proven to be a problem in your designs 
so far?


> If half-agraffes save time in stringing in the factory, that, in itself,
> justifies their use.  Any benefit to rebuilders is "icing on the cake."

Assuming existing agraffes doesn't get them installed. How 
about if time (and cost) spent installing them exceeds time 
(and cost) saved in stringing? What's the real time and cost 
trade off here?


> More to the point, how many of these pianos will require a single string
> replacement?  I would estimate 20-50% might need a single string
> replacement within their useful life.  Would you not prefer to deal with an
> half-agraffe AND pressure bar, than a full agraffe and pressure bar, in the
> replacement of a single string?

When did my choices become limited to those two options? The 
pressure bar is the major pain in the butt for string 
replacement in verticals, regardless of the presence or 
absence of agraffes - full or half. And it's hard to beat a 
pinned bass section for ease of string replacement.


> As things stand today, maybe 2% of Chinese-built pianos will be worthy of
> rebuilding in 2050.  Give it a decade or so, and the pianos available for
> rebuilding in 2060 will be almost entirely Chinese-built instruments.

Cheery thought.


> I am willing to make consessions to marketing, as long as it "does no harm"
> technically.  This does not constitute conceding design to marketing
> issues.  

Yes, it does. It's not a binary thing, either 0% or 100%. 
Design of commercial products has always been driven by 
marketing. "Design anything you want, and we'll sell it" is a 
phrase that will never be heard from any marketing department 
anywhere, if they hope to stay in business. None of us do 
exactly what we want to. We try to work with the realities of 
survival and make such concessions to these realities as we 
can live with.


>Everyone and his brother makes observations about prototypes,
> and changes are made without my knowledge.  In these cases, the piano
> becomes a piano designed by a "commity."  .... A recipe for disaster!

And an extremely common recipe at that.

Ron N