"diminishing returns" is the very acknowledgement of better quality with more expensive machines! Now it's just issues of degree....
Well we are talking a game with humans and the end result – consistency from repeated man/machine interface, is just as good. I've stated a klipper or any drop weight will, with the beauty of simplicity, pull a string *every bit as accurate* as any other machine money will buy. Further, stringing being a highly artistic endeavor, a skilled person repeatedly using a klipper (or any maintained machine) will be *more precise* in final product (a consistent racket bed response) than a team of stringers using a very high end machine.
The latest poke at the klipper (or any non-ratcheting dw) is the subtle string pulling and adjustments with the dw. Even in my very limited use on a friend's machine, I found this to be virtually minimal. Even so, even with my lock-out or an elec tensioner, most every segment of string gets fully tensioned 2x in the process of weaving and clamping.
I'm not sure I understand the point of your first statement. Was my previous assessment wrong? Are we not ALL talking about the exact same thing? Your quote confirms my statement, thus... are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
Let's not appeal to the emotional side of this argument. Beauty, simplicity, artistry...? Yeah, those are pleasant words, of course, but they are irrelevant. String pull isn't actually the point, here. I absolutely disagree that a Klippermate as a system is more precise than a higher end machine. Flying clamps torque more, and they are fixed width, AND they depend on an anchor string. The anchor string is a variable tension, so the torque will change depending on the string gauge, stiffness, tension. This doesn't even account for turn table flexion, warping of the frame, tensioner angle, clamp width, re-pumps. I think what you're trying to argue is that the drop weight is more accurate, but that can also be argued against (did you ever address my point about what happens when you release the clamp on a cross?)
Consistency is not being questioned (by me). Accuracy is being questioned. When you squeeze strings together on the periphery of the string bed, you are absolutely affecting accuracy. You can remain consistent while doing this, but you are no longer accurate. It doesn't matter if the tensioner pulls "as true" as another system if you are not clamping "as true" as another system. There are diminishing returns even in higher end clamps. Any level of slop and/or drawback contributes to inaccuracy. The practitioner can still be consistent, but they are not accurate.
I actually agree with you, though, that the re-pulling argument is overplayed, but it still exists. It's relatively minor all things considered, though. Virtually minimal does not mean "non-existent," if we're going to be arguing minutiae.
Not true... This is my point and you still have not answered it.
With a crank or an electronic, a segment of string will be under tension 2x (once between the frame and the tensioner and once inside the string). With a dropweight, the string is tensioned and relaxed an additional number of cycles which may/may not be the same on each pull... Little difference? Tell that to Monogut ZX which stretches like chewing gum in early August.
What I find elitist... is your idea that folks who spend more money on machines with better features and build quality are somehow misguided.
I think you've already admitted in the previous thread that you don't have (much?) experience on the klippermate. The fact is that a very experienced operator will have very, very few re-pulls, provided the string doesn't bottom out your tensioner. Yes, it still does happen from time to time, but you're making it a little more dramatic sounding than it needs to be. Your argument is still valid, but having this issue be the crux of your argument is not the strongest approach, IMO.
They are misguided. You have yet to prove a high end machine stringer will produce a better quality string job. My hammer drives a nail just as well as your Neman Marcus hammer. Proof is in the result, not in conjecture. So the discussion should be what metrics could be used to determine which produced the best string job?
Define your metrics on quality and then we'll have something interesting to discuss. Offer a rebuttal to the systematic drawbacks that are being discussed, then we'll have something interesting to discuss. Your assertion is that IF (hypothetical) all of your systems are doing the same thing to the same degree, then the string job will be the same at the end. This is actually a duh statement. If you'd like to end this argument, all you have to say is that your definition of quality is whether or not a statistically significant sample of test subjects would be able to discern between two separate string jobs on two separate machines. I would agree with you that most players in general probably couldn't tell -- most players are un(der)educated and don't know what the difference is in the first place. If we're talking about strict accuracy, I would argue that your sub-systems actually aren't "good enough" as compared to higher end machines, but I won't attempt to move any goal-posts on you if you're not arguing the same thing.
As far as your (silly) analogy, note that it is not a good tool (pun intended) for rhetorical debate, especially when it's such a weak comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy
I should also point out anecdotal evidence is another logical fallacy. Just because you seem to have lucked out with your Eagnas machines does not make it a fact that cheaper machines are just as good as higher end ones. I claim that there is less slop in the clamping system of a Babolat Sensor than your Eagnas machines, and I claim that the manufacturing tolerances are tighter. If you'd like to dispute the claim we can set up empirical measurements to quantify the differences. Otherwise you're creating an argument that will never be proven or disproven, and it's a waste of time to participate in this discussion (IMO)
Therein lies the debate... If one with skill, care and time get a consistent string bed with a Klippermate... fine, but don't go insulting those with higher end machines as Elitist. Again... I just don't see how the tension pulled with a drop weight could be as consistent. Does it have a net affect on the resulting stringbed? Different debate..
This is a better analogy.... I can drive a finish nail with a hammer and a nail set... but I am faster and much more consistent with my pneumatic nail gun. Does it have an effect on the quality and function of the bookcase I build? Who knows... But I'm glad I have a compressor and a nail gun.... and I'm not an elitist for buying them.
No, I disagree. I don't think that's the topic of discussion here. Don't get caught up in all of this wishy-washy discussion and stick to the point. Experienced human operators can definitely provide (over time) a consistent string bed given enough time on a machine and string setup. There is systematic variability on the Klippermate, true, but this (over time) is relatively minute. You ARE correct with the concept of having issues with re-pulls, etc., it's LESS consistent than a nicer machine, sure, but you have little mistakes all the time that requires a repull, etc. Getting your string accidentally caught in the gripper the wrong way, etc. Keep in mind consistency is always measured over time.
Also, I recommend not falling prey to silly arguments like this nail gun thing. It doesn't move the discussion forward.
Not in my experience... I get the adhesive coated nails and the heat caused by driving the nail sets the nail in and holds better over time.
