<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi Gene.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I suppose that the long bridge on that Knabe makes a "hockey stick" shape in the tenor section (reducing the speaking lengths in that area compared to the logarithmic progression).  Is it so ?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In pianos with plain wire trichords on the tenor end of the long bridge (did I understand that this is your intend ?  replace the long bridge wound bichords by plain trichords ?), the use of shorter speaking length induces a drastic drop in tension for those wires, causing an increase of inharmonicity.  My understanding (following Wolfenden) is that this is meant for the tenor end of the long bridge's notes inharmonicity to meet that of the high notes on the bass bridge, ensuring a smooth transition between the two bridges.  I understood that many redesigners on the list don't like that drop in tension and try to bypass the need for it.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>How do the wound bichords on the long bridge sound ?  Too much inharmonicity ?  Maybe the Pure Sound trichords could be a good idea there, as you suggest.  But if they sound better, wouldn't the transition between those and the bass bridge be more obvious ?  And also, the volume of the Pure Sound notes would be a concern.  Maybe choosing a thicker gauge would help.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Just my 2 euro cents thoughts.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Best regards.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Stéphane Collin.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=nelsong@pbic.net href="mailto:nelsong@pbic.net">Gene Nelson</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=pianotech@ptg.org href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">Pianotech List</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:13 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Pure Sound (was A 435 or A 440 ?)</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Stephane,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thank you very much for this information.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I do not have any experience with Pure Sound but had entertained the idea of using it in place of wound bi-chords in the lo-tenor of a 5'8" Knabe rather than try to get a string maker to wind the ultra small wrap or make a 3rd bridge.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sounds like I could indeed get a bit more tension and less inharmonicity. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Any thoughts?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Gene Nelson</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>