<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple id="role_body" bottomMargin=7 leftmargin=7 topmargin=7 rightMargin=7> <div class=Section1> Yes and no.  My approach in these situations is to allow for adequate bearing no matter what loop is used—and maybe even a tad more.  Then shim underneath the felt which lines the hitch pin shelf to accurately set the bearing on the bass bridge once the treble and tenor is strung and brought close to pitch.  That will capture a more accurate reading of actual deflection on the soundboard assembly and allow for setting up the bass bridge more accurately.  Especially important if you are maintaining one of those cantilevered jobs.  Installing a plate float system helps a bit in tweaking things as well.    Also, with respect to a previous posting (not yours Dale) suggesting there is no quantitative data to support the use of such loops, it is fairly easy to demonstrate, if not quantify, the difference in stiffness between the two different types especially where the backscale is relatively short.  The relationship between greater mobility of the bass bridge and bass response has also been explored fairly thoroughly and is part of the tradition of setting zero bearing on the bass bridge.  There is also a substantial body of anecdotal evidence to support the use of this type of loop especially when combined with a reexamination of core diameters and overall tension levels.  Personally, I wouldn’t wait until all the numbers are in to move to such a philosophy of dealing with the bass, especially the monochords and on those pianos with shorter backscales.         <div> David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com </div> -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Erwinspiano@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:21 PM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: German loops on M Bass strings   <div> <div>   Hi Ron </div> <div>   I totally agree. Double wrap etc. However bearing problems can occur when retrofitting these loops to an existing bridge where the bearing load was designed for the twist style loop, which lays quite a bit lower than the German loop which, sits up higher on the hitch pin.  </div> <div>     Also Something to consider when bridge caps are being replaced...... one needs to Decide up front to use them & set your bridge height accordingly..... &  uhh....not as an after thought.  amhIk </div> <div>   Dale </div> <div>   </div> <div>   </div> <div>   </div> <div>   </div> <div> The standard M scale at A 1 has a speaking length of 124 cm. With the standard 1.5 mm core and a wrap diameter of 5.6, nothing much is going to happen down there with the stock spec', regardless of how good or otherwise the sound board might be. I'd suggest a re-scale with something like 1.3 or 1.225 for the core with a double wrap taken up to around 6.0 or a bit more. If you double loop the eyes as well you'll get it cracking (I'd better mention that a shorter version of the standard old twisted eye will go pretty hard as well, if you use vertical hitches with it - uncle Ron N is a big fan of that approach).  But talk to Jim A as well. He's capable of firing a few ideas at you. </div> <blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt; margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'> <div>   </div> <div> Ron O. </div> </blockquote> </div> <div>   </div> </div> </body> </html>