Bridge Seating (was Re: Where to notch a bridge, & relative effects ????? (Advice sought)

[William R. Monroe]

Hi Jonathan and list,

Just to add a note to this discussion.  I think one of the things that folks 
like Ron N. are working so hard to overcome is years of doing things that we 
think work, and really don't, or work, but through different means than 
we've understood.

Example: Seating strings.  Ron N. (and please correct me here, Ron, if I 
have made any egregious errors) has acknowledged the observed phenomena of a 
note becoming more clear after "seating."  Many techs think, "great, job 
done."  Ron's position on this is that when seating does seem to clean up a 
note, it is quite likely, that you've simply moved the string down (into the 
crushed notch edge), and TEMPORARILY cleaned up the note; that in a short 
period of time that string will be "unseated" again.  So what we've 
accomplished is getting it to sound OK until we leave the scene or shortly 
thereafter, when the real problem is in the bridge cap.

I'm not taking sides here, but I think it is important to admit that this 
particular situation does happen.  And, as such, it is a case where we think 
we are doing the piano a favor, but, with the help of a scientific approach, 
we can see it is not the case.

I think we should all be striving to avail ourselves of all pertinent 
information, scientific, artistic, whatever, in our decision making and 
learning, and be willing to accept (easily) that long held beliefs may not 
be what we thought.  And, they may be.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't 
continue to question them.

Regards,
William R. Monroe


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Finger" <pianotech at tollidee.com>
To: "Pianotech List" <pianotech at ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Bridge Seating (was Re: Where to notch a bridge,& relative 
effects ????? (Advice sought)


> Ron Nossaman wrote:
>> It's not about being authoritative. It's about accurate and useful 
>> information.
> Here we agree - though apparently we're looking at this from two different 
> angles.
........
> This answer should always be the same: to make the piano sound and perform 
> better than it did when I first got to it.  This is not a scientific 
> pursuit for me - rather it is an artistic one.  Perhaps that's because I 
> approach piano technology from a performer's shoes.  My goal in everything 
> is to improve the instrument.  Improve, not prove.
> If gently seating strings didn't improve anything, or offer visible 
> (aural) returns, I wouldn't do it. Piano technology isn't, and shouldn't 
> be about a system of steps and actions for the sake of work, pride, or 
> discovery.   Those attributes are, and should be secondary.
> Our work is, and should be, about creating the possibility for art to be 
> produced, and reproduced at its highest level, thus ensuring its clearest 
> translation from the mind of its creator, to the ears of its audience.
> Our job is to overcome and transcend the physicality of the piano, 
> allowing for something more to come through it.
> Jonathan Finger