Hi David: Well, as I said in my opening comment to this thread. There has been all manner of speculative disagreement on this matter since the beginning of time it would seem. So it does not surprise me to find that has not changed. For my part, I stick with my experience until I find a good reason to do otherwise. A well functioning duplex scale is dependent on the condition (profile and hardness) of the termination as much as it is length and counter bearing angle. String noise coming from any given front duplex is not the same as the sound contribution coming from the front length itself. Its pretty simple stuff to demonstrate how a well functioning duplex scale can work. I'm not going to get into a protracted discussion about the woahs and/or wows of the front duplex, as we wont find any ground for agreement me thinks. And thats not what Alan was asking for to begin with. I will, however repeat what seems obvious and simple to me. That leakage through the termination is not equivalent with noise coming from the duplex, and that not all energy that leaks through the termination is simply lost to heat. If the picture was so bleek as that then there is just no way anyone would ever use it. In fact, it is employed in a large majority of pianos being made today. Once again, as to the Grotrian I've written about previously. The only significant changes done was to Bechstein-ize the back and front lengths. The effect was very obvious and one could clearly hear both piano designs comming through. As far as changing Steinway front duplexes to something like Nossamans grand in Rochester. I've seen this kind of thing done as a job in itself. No way you are going to get me to buy into the idea that this doesn't significantly change the character of the sound. Nor do I see it shown that power and sustain are significantly improved. Clarity is indeed affected anytime one eliminates string noise alone... but that is an independent matter. Finally, if there is a study that clearly shows the relationship between power/sustain vs front duplex length and counter bearing angle as you suggest below, I would love to see it. We all asked Duplex Dan for data supporting his claims... and never got any. The same desire for documented quantification goes all. To my knowledge the only one on the lists who has supplied us with anything along these lines was Calin T on pianotech. Might be good for interesteds to review his experiment. The beautiful thing about diversity in piano building philosophy is that it allows for a very colorful field of piano tone variation. This has been the case for very long indeed, despite the obvious preference the market at large has (for whatever reasons) for the Steinway sound. Bechstein, Bosendorfer, Bluthner, and more all have survived nicely whilst offering up alternatives. This is all well and fine and we are all supposed to end up with our individual preferences. The problem comes between folks when one or another starts trying to prove conclusively how this or the other instrument or feature thereof is fundamentally better then another. We see that such argumentation always ends up forcing data to fit the conclusion... no matter what one is arguing for or against. And even the most quantifiable data simply must take into consideration what in the end is the final determinant.... what people, pianists, the market.. actually end up choosing as their preference. Ok... grin.. nuf musing about on this subject. Alan, I believe you got what you were after from the original thread line. Y'all have a good day. Cheers RicB Long, low angled duplexes are more likely to lose energy (leak and make noise) than short, low angled duplexes. That's pretty demonstrable. Noisy duplexes (where there is leakage) have demonstrably less power and sustain than non leaking duplexes. That's also very demonstrable and seems like pretty simple stuff. There seems to be an optimum combination of length and angle that reduces leakage and doesn't cause excess drag or wear on the capo bar. Fandrich has quantified this in some previous writings, I believe. Added mass in the capo bar always seems to help with loss of energy. Minimizing loss of energy appears to help with both power and sustain. I think it would be a march of folly to try and create a counterbearing situation that optimizes the amount of leakage in the hope of having some reflected back to the speaking length. I suppose that's personal opinion though I like to think of it as common sense. As far as the Grotrian goes, my only comment is that it's hard to isolate variables. When a complete rebuild is done, it's not always possible to tell whether the change in tone is due to a change in some particular item or whether it comes from some combined effect from several changes. My experience (anecdotal evidence of course) from having changed many Steinway counterbearing areas and left most other things alone (except for new strings, bridge renotching, and capo shaping) is that there is no noticeable change in the character of the tone, however there is a noticeable change in the clarity, power, sustain and propensity for leakage. That might be heard as a change in tonal character but I don't consider it one. Rather, it seems more like a mechanical optimization of what's already there; tonal changes, in this case, being limited to changes in soundboard response. Whether or not my "perceptions" constitute absolute proof in pure scientific terms, I'd have to say they don't and could be construed as a simple matter of opinion. David Love davidlovepianos at comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC