Tuning Duplex

[Richard Brekne]

Ron Nossaman wrote:

>
> In talking about this stuff, we need to do a few things that have been
> largely  overlooked or ignored altogether. We need to clearly differentiate
> between the front and rear duplexes, since each is an entirely different
> beastie from the other, and they are not remotely functionally equivalent,
> much less interchangeable.

I have been saying this more or less all along, and its really just recently
and because of this list that I have even turned my attention at all towards
the backlength seen as a duplex. Ed McMorrow goes so far as to say that the
"duplex scale" refers to the front duplex alone, and that only the segment from
the capo to the counterbearing.  Tho I agree that a wider usage of the term as
defined by some others as more or less any non muted string segment except the
speaking length is to some degree descriptive one of the functions of a duplex
scale, it has always been more of a source of confusion to me then anything
else. So I try and always say either front or back duplex.


> We need to differentiate between just moving
> aliquots,  just manipulating segment tensions with the aliquot in unknown
> position, or manipulating segment tensions with the aliquot in previously
> verified accurate position.

I would say this makes sense. The expression "tuning the duplex" then is far to
vauge for clarity in this regard.

> If we can't do that, then none of us will ever
> know what the other is talking about, much like we're doing now, and if we
> live to be a thousand, none of this will ever be cleared up. Not that it
> ever will be anyway, but we should at least make an attempt at intelligent
> communication.

Here here !!... er... whats the difference between an Orange ? :)

>
>
> Ron N




--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no