<!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 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <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></BODY></HTML>