<HTML>In a message dated 7/6/2002 8:17:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, kpiano@goldrush.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Keith , Rons ,David and all</BLOCKQUOTE>     Keith ,While I appreciate your supportive words I would submit this opinion to be somewhat subjective regarding tonal improvements due to the  bridge & soundboards laminated structural stiffness and not one I'm trying to convince any one else of.   But back to the Mason A bridge I said in my original post I stated the tenor bridge it sweeps but actually it's more of a rightish angle protruding toward the bass.   After reading others input it sounds as if it would have  made more sense to let the long bridge protrude further down for support and mass/impedance needs. Is this the concensus?   I'd go measure the exact distance the strings were for- shortened but the piano is up on its side. It's getting a new board so this bridge modification would be no problem to incorporate. Other suggestions of interest? >>>>Dale>>. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> Maybe gluing the bridge cap on in the crowned position and the bridge to the sound board in the crowned position, like Dale does, will add the necessary impedance to the treble end of the bridge. Most of the models discussed here on the list, didn't seem to deal with the  stiffness added by the glue joints in a laminated structure. Usually underestimated and throws that kink into the reality/theory gap along with a few of the other observartions Dale has made. Actually, I 've been hearing Dale tune and voice while I work and if he says he can hear a difference in the two boards, I believe him. Keith R Associate PTG Message </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>