The complimentary objectives and outcomes produced by the unconnected tests in chapter two and chapter four supports the following statement by Wayne Stuart regarding the reduced amount of energy loss, or damping in the Stuart string vibration.

No change can contribute to a greater motion and quicker loss [as you indicate but] the lack of subsequent changes in mode ultimately reduces the overall loss in comparison to the ever changing back and forth motions of the pinned bridge scenario. ²¹⁵

Recording Stuart and Steinway Piano Tones

The amplitudes or maximum value of oscillatory disturbance²¹⁶ of the vibrations of piano tone were measured in three locations of sound activity:

1. the room, as radiated sound via a microphone array,
2. the instrument as the power source: a sound level meter (SLM) microphone positioned 10cm above the hammer strike of the string.
3. the soundboard – the oscillating muscle, via four piezo electric disk probes, positioned on the soundboard.

The design differences of the Stuart and Steinway pianos, which are associated with these tests:

1. Piano string attachment coupling to the soundboard, which affects the string vibration contour,
2. String mass, length and tension.
3. Sound board stiffness, mass and thickness.

Qualities of tone linked with elements of design.

The components of piano design that were observed to have influenced the qualities of tone were:
soundboard stiffness;
string material;
string tension;
string length;
down bearing;
horizontal pinned string coupling at the bridge ;
vertical agraffe coupling at the bridge.

See chapter 1 for the detailed dimensions of the specific Stuart and Steinway pianos examined by this research.

²¹⁵ Wayne Stuart, “Decay and Damping” email interview with author , 22nd June ,2014 .
^{216     3}Benade,174