Hi David Nice post. All this angling going on took me back to this.... It should take relatively little in the way of bridge pin clamping affect for the string to stay in solid contact with the bridge provided the down bearing is adequate/significant at the front or rear pin. Hmm... ie. Wapin Dale Paul, Since, in a parallel thread/ universe, I felt compelled to reserve my fundamental right to speculate, the very nature of which is defined by the absence of proof, I will gingerly exercise that freedom here. I feel the need to state this for two reasons, the first, being, as referenced, the (somewhat) concurrent thread "will it split". The other is that this discussion of bridge pin angles easily converges upon a broader area of discussion which, I believe, first began to get me in trouble with some list elders, though, having turned 60, I'm pretty old myself. I'm referring to the concepts of clamping and termination. First, termination. Everything said, thus far, would seem to make sense: vectors, neighboring pin interference (maybe not), optimal bridge mass, or "not much difference". All of this would seem to presume that the execution is accurate and consistent enough to ensure that, no matter what the angles (stagger and offset), string contact with notch and pin are simultaneous. If this assumption is incorrect, I'd like your view. If the potential lack of such simultaneity is of no concern, either structurally (notch-edge crushing) or tonally=2 0(initial contact being with either wood or metal, and either horizontal or semi vertical plane), then this first area of speculation has no bearing upon your question regarding angles. Otherwise, I would suggest that the offset angle (towards the notch) could, in actual execution, be more likely to produce a "pin-first" termination, which may, in fact, be what you want. I mention it mainly because it hasn't been, up to now. Second issue is the concept of clamping, and specifically, 'efficient' clamping. What does this mean? What is the conceptual model? Assuming ideal downbearing (positive and not excessive on front and rear), what does clamping do? Is it a function of the energy transmission? Is it a safety factor to address climatic variations? What happens outside the consensus range? Not intending, in any way, to provoke or to otherwise hijack this thread, I'm reminded of Wapin. So what matters? how much? and why? Not really looking for answers, just seeing how many calories I can burn speculatin. Best wishes David Skolnik Hastings on Hudson, NY At 03:51 AM 12/26/2008, you wrote: Wow, Frank, all good and well-considered answers! Thanks! And I am particularly taken with the idea of the compound angle from the perspective you describe--to achieve as efficient a lock as possible, and to "offset" the bisecting vector. It is much like agraffes in the deep bass which are angled to "sect" the staggered angle of the string from the tuni ng pin and then on into the speaking length. And whether is really makes enough of a difference in the bridge pin lock to argue for the difference is moot. Thanks again for your thoughts--they go much toward my own mindful consensus :-) Paul In a message dated 12/25/2008 9:56:40 P.M. Central Standard Time, pianoguru at cox.net writes: Hi Paul, The function of the bridge pin is to clamp the string to the bridge. This suggests to me that a 4â° angle to the front, for the front pin, and the same to the back, for the back pin, would be optimal for clamping the string to the bridge. Frank Emerson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20081226/2aaf030e/attachment.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC