[CAUT] Duplex scales

[RicB]

Hi Jim


You offer a wonderful post below that expresses my own sentiments very 
well. As I believe I stated quite clearly this whole issue is not about 
whether one way of doing things is superior to another.  Its simply 
about creating a sound.  There is no doubt that the original patent 
contains claims and explanations that dont add up. But then they lacked 
quite a bit of the technology for measuring things we have today.   The 
issue of longitudinal modes in Steinways claim is an interesting one to 
be sure. I've speculated in my own thinking that there was / is no 
apparent transverse behaviour from these lengths when the speaking 
length is excited... so perhaps he just assumed.... but then who knows 
really. In any case you are correct as usual.

As for the "Emperor's New Clothes" scenario....  Exactly my point.  But 
it works both ways..... any way you put them on for that matter.  No 
sense trying to pretend the clothes are any different just because the 
Emperor has been replaced if you get my meaning.  Naked is still 
naked... grin.

Cheers
RicB



    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