Well, I see that my remarks about duplex scales kicked off a debate. If I ruffled any feathers, I'm sorry. But if I stimulated some thinking, then I'm glad. C.F.T. Steniway's original duplex scale disclosed in his May 14, 1872 US Patent, #126,848 is not the same as the duplex scale we see in Steinway pianos today. The drawing shows the duplex on both ends of the strings going all the way down to the longest plain wire. Steinway claimed to be harmonizing the longitudinal modes of the string tails with the speaking lengths. Some people believe he meant "transverse" when he said "longitudinal", but others believe he intended to say what it says in the patent disclosure. I don't know what he intended to say. But one thing I do know: He was NOT "harmonizing" the "longitudinal" modes of the string tails with the normal modes of the speaking lengths. It can't be done that way, considering the dimensions. Ric Brekne mentioned "forcing data to fit the conclusion". I agree, Ric. I see it all the time in many fields, especially in the piano business, and I strongly dislike it. It's bad science and non-science. I see pianos that have had everything done to them that can be done, and indeed they do sound better, but someone will claim that the improvement is due entirely to one particular thing he/she did or installed. Furthermore, without direct comparison, or without "before-and-after" recordings made under identical conditions, and I do mean IDENTICAL in every respect, there is no way to know exactly how much improvement was made. This brings us to the "Emperor's New Clothes" scenario. One dare not say it's not much better, because he thinks everyone else thinks it is. And, in my opinion, after something has been touted as superior for more than a century, and copied far and wide, no one dare say it's really not that good after all, because he/she thinks everyone else "knows" it is. Sincerely, Jim Ellis
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC