<!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 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080>"The question, of course, is why the capo =
d'astro bar
configuration has become such a dominate standard throughout the
industry."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Mr. Fandrich, I'm surprised at your ignorance of the history of =
piano
design. Does it really require a beginner to explain this to you? The =
answer, of
course is that Steinway does it. So everyone else that =
builds pianos needs
to do it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Seriously though, this was a real interesting post. Made me get =
real
excited about my upcoming rebuild/redesign of my 1900 6' Bechstein with =
all
agraffes (big thick rascals). Could you please expand on exactly what do =
you
mean when you speak of the poor string termination of the capo d'astro =
bar
configuration. What is poor about it? How does it compare to the =
agraffe? I
understand (I think I might anyway) about energy losses associated with =
aliquot
systems, but what is inherently or potentially bad/inefficient about the =
capo
design compared to the agraffe design. Thanks for any thoughts you may =
have on
this.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Oh, and thanks to Brain Trout, I found your soundboard papers on =
the
Journal CD - these are the ones you refer to that start in December =
1997?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Terry Farrell</DIV>
<DIV> <SPAN id=__#Ath#SignaturePos__></SPAN> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=pianobuilders@olynet.com
href="mailto:pianobuilders@olynet.com">Delwin D Fandrich</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=pianotech@ptg.org
href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, June 24, 2001 =
12:04
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Agraffe tuning =
eaiser or
not?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jfinnigan@optusnet.com.au
href="mailto:jfinnigan@optusnet.com.au">Jarred Finnigan</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=pianotech@ptg.org
href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">PTG</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> June 19, 2001 11:40 =
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Agraffe tuning =
eaiser or
not?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would love to get some responses =
to this post
and maybe some thoughts on the pros and cons of the use of agraffes =
as
opposed to v bar, pressure bar. Remember I am talking about =
the tuning
ease and stability in a new piano using agraffes, worn agraffes, =
well that's
a whole other story.
<HR>
</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080>Jarred,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080>The question, of course, is why =
the capo
d'astro bar configuration has become such a dominate standard =
throughout the
industry. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080>Little of any real technical =
merit was
written about the transition in the early works, but the reasons for =
the
transition seem to boil down to just two: 1) The difficulty of getting =
the
hammer strike point correct through the upper treble when using =
agraffes, even
the overhanging agraffe. And, 2) the idea that the extra mass of the =
capo
d'astro would help conserve some of the energy otherwise lost =
<FONT
color=#000080></FONT>to either to the non-rigidity of the agraffe or =
to the
plate through the upper tenor and treble region where sustain and =
power have
long been a problem. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080>Companies like Sohmer and =
Heintzman took this
idea to its illogical extreme when they connected the capo d'astro bar =
with
the plate pinblock panel. It was also the idea behind the development =
of the
Baldwin string termination piece used in the SF-10 and SD-10 pianos. =
Each of
these pieces is screwed to the plate flange and to the capo d'astro =
bar,
effectively mass-coupling the two together. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080>For the most part, of course, any =
energy
savings due to the added mass of the capo d'astro bar are lost--and =
then
some--by the inclusion of a tuned aliquot string design which =
introduces a
whole new set of intentional energy losses. Or by the inherently =
inefficient
string termination of the Baldwin design. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080>Which leaves us with the =
question, are
any of these energy losses real enough and/or significant enough to =
warrant
the wholesale transition from one type to the other? (Assuming that =
careful
design and construction has made finding the correct hammer strike =
point
possible.) I can only speak from our own experience, but based on the
performance of several pianos using the all-agraffe design that we've
completed recently, I'd have to say--for me, at least--the jury is =
still out.
One piano I'm watching with some interest is an old Geo. Steck which =
now has a
fully redesigned soundboard and rib set along with a revised =
tenor/treble
bridge. (Bass bridge too, but that's not relevant to this discussion.) =
This
piano has agraffes through C-88 and they are not even of the more =
massive
overhung design. Yet the acoustic power of this piano will easily =
compete with
any other piano of the same length using the more common capo d'astro =
design.
(I still own the piano and have been able to observe it for several =
years as
it is regularly used in performance.) We have done several other =
pianos using
the overhung agraffe design and found the results to be similar. When =
the
soundboard design is working and the piano is given a reasonable =
stringing
scale through the treble, the all-agraffe system seems to work quite =
well.
Which leads me to believe many of the problems our early builders =
thought they
were having with the all-agraffe string termination system actually
lay with their soundboard designs. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080>I don't have anything close to a =
definitive
answer here, just some observations. But those observations have taken =
me from
being convinced that the capo d'astro bar/V-bar system was the =
inherently
superior system (as I was taught), to accepting that the all-agraffe =
system
has much merit (as I have observed). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080>I'm sure there are some energy =
losses
inherent to the less solid and less massive agraffe termination, but =
those
losses may be compensated for by the typically better string =
termination
geometry common to these designs. I'm also sure that most of the =
problems with
the tone performance found through the upper tenor and treble sections =
of the
modern piano lie with the traditional design and construction of the
soundboard and rib system, with their typically erratic scale designs, =
and
with the losses introduced by inefficient string termination =
regardless of the
design used. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080>Personally, I'd be willing to =
give the
all-agraffe system a chance. How does the piano sound? In this case, =
how does
the piano tune? Does the piano meet the buyers needs and emotional =
desires?
Has the customer had the chance to play the piano for an hour or two? =
Does it
work with the music he/she typically plays? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080>If the piano passes these tests I =
would
suggest that the customer ignore the tuner who doesn't like tuning the =
piano,
purchase the piano he/she likes playing and hire someone to tune it =
and
service it who isn't prejudiced against the design. </FONT><FONT
color=#000080>I have observed that those--mostly those from the =
technical
community--who are convinced that a certain design feature is 'best' =
will
continue to believe so even after it has been demonstrated that a =
piano built
some other way actually gives better performance. Prejudice has =
nothing to do
with reality.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT =
color=#000080>Del</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>