Article about bridge agraffes - function, types

[RicB]

Hi Calin, Cy..  lots of points so I'll just comment on one for the time 
being.

I'm not entirely sure what exactly you mean in the below and the 
corresponding part of your article.  What I'm hanging onto is the basic 
impedance match between string and the bridge.  This is a pretty 
complicated affair when you start mixing in the relative strengths of 
partials.  Perhaps its just the wording that trips

     "which are much stiffer and transmit high frequency vibration
    better") 

The inference being that the wood surface damps higher frequencies 
earlier.   That would mean that if you constructed two bridges of equal 
mass... the only difference being the stiffness of each... then you 
could observe the same result.  I'm not really sure this is the case... 
but then I havent really thought about it much either. In anycase I'm 
not comfortable with the word transmit here.  The stiffer and more massy 
a termination is... the less it transmits of vibrational energy through 
it.  It will rather reflect this energy back through the input source 
(strings) typically increasing sustain and lowering output amplitude.

I'd assumed the filter was to minimize the audible effects of loss of 
energy to the termination itself... much like braiding a front duplex to 
quite capo noise.

Cheers
RicB

     > This seems to counter your original assumption about standard 
    bridge pins,  namely that the wood cap allows high frequencies to
    pass  through, where > bridge agraffes do not.  Is that what you meant?

    It actually supports my assumptions. Wood caps are weaker and more
    flexible
    than a bridge agraffe. So a bridge agraffe can be TOO EFFICIENT, in
    that it
    can make higher partials audible than what you'd get with standard
    bridge
    pins. Some of these higher partials are not always desireable
    (especially
    above the 7th). That's why they use the filter, to "tune" the harmonic
    content.