Duplicity on a Grand Scale

[Michael Jorgensen]

Ron,
    You right, I'll forget duplexes. Speaking of killer octaves and
soundboards that don't work, what's news with Del Fandrichs' "Killer B"?
Will the powers that be make any changes to their soundboards as a
result of that?
-Mike

 Ron Nossaman wrote:

> >
> 
> Hi Mike,
> The angle and length sure affect volume and pitch of the duplex. It would be
> easy enough to set this up and test it, if you had access to RCT, but I
> doubt that it would ultimately be of any use. From what I've seen, heard,
> and done, I've got to go with what Del's been saying about front duplexes.
> If the soundboard works, you don't need them, and they don't really work as
> they were intended to in the first place, so there's no point to them in any
> case. What they steal in string energy doesn't seem to me to be worth the
> nasty noises they make. High bearing angle for better termination, and short
> lengths to keep them out of the tonal result, and you never have to "dink"
> with them again. Like I tried to point out in an earlier post. If they are
> an enhancement, rather than a patch, why aren't they designed into the
> entire scale? Why only the low end of the killer octave on up? They are an
> attempted fix for a soundboard design problem (that doesn't work) and most
> everyone is looking at it from the wrong direction entirely. Anyway, I was
> intrigued that there was so much bleed through in all areas of the scale,
> and at any bearing angle that I came across. This also makes me wonder how
> much power the understring felt in the agraffe section is stealing from the
> speaking length. Again, like Del has been saying, that half oval brass bar
> would be a better choice.
> 
> Just trying to throw a small brick or two into the prevailing attitudes
> about this stuff. Since the accepted gospel concerning front duplexes
> doesn't work the same way twice in a row, there could, perhaps, be a minor
> flaw in the accepted reasoning. You think?
> 
> Ever a Lert,
>  Ron