<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE> <META http-equiv=Content-Type = content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Do I see right, in the picture, that = the note at the left side of the srut seems to have a shorter speaking length than = the note at the right (or am I fooled by the persepctive of the pic) ?  And = that at the right of the strut, choirs have three same speaking length, while at = the left the three speaking length per choir are different (as Dale pointed = out) ?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Makes me think (like the limited range = of front duplex) that they didn't like monotonous uniformity of sound all over = the scale, back then.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Stéphane Collin.</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE 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=Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no href="mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no">Richard Brekne</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A = title=pianotech@ptg.org href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">Pianotech</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, July 31, 2004 = 6:29 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Hamamatsu Museum = of Instruments</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV>Calin. <BR><BR>I really dont see there is any physical impediment to making the surface area of the bridge wider so that a = longer segment of the string comes in contact with the bridge anywhere along = its length. Unless you are saying that the speaking length of the string = required the front notch to be where it is, and the lack of  a dogleg then = forces a shorter contact segment ?  That would make sense I suppose... = so then, you are saying they did this to avoid using a dogleg in the bridge = itself ?... Ok.. :) whats the benifit of avoiding the dogleg then ?<BR><BR>Cheers<BR>RicB<BR><BR>Calin Tantareanu wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid000b01c476fd$297bd000$d50107c3@C = type="cite"><PRE wrap="">I still think it's because of the bridge = having no dogleg. There's simply no room for the larger contact area, so they made it smaller. Seems obvious = to me. But if you can find another explanation, please tell us. </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><IMG alt="" src="cid:002101c4772d$055b26f0$7401fea9@OrdinateurStephane"><BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid000b01c476fd$297bd000$d50107c3@C = type="cite"><PRE wrap=""> </PRE> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><PRE wrap="">Hmm.. not sure we are on = the same page here. I mean the width of the contact area of the bridge along the length of the stringss. There is a very marked gradual changing in this width, expecially noticeble in the </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=""> _______________________________________________ pianotech list info: <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext = href="https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives">http://www.ptg.org= /mailman/listinfo/pianotech</A> </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>