S&S D Duplex -- Long & Meandering

[Delwin D Fandrich]

----- Original Message -----
From: <Duplexdan@aol.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: November 19, 2002 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: S&S D Duplex


> Del,
>
> But the World of Piano Technicians will need you to describe in detail the
> piano or pianos whose duplex scales you claim to have tuned to no avail.
It
> would also be obligatory to describe the condition of the pianos you
operated
> on in order that your testimony can be taken as credible.

Well, no, they don't. You do. And, to be honest, I don't really care if
you--or anyone else, for that--take anything I have to say as credible or
not. Going back some 30 years much of what I've had to say about piano
design has not been considered credible by much of the industry--from the
bulk of the technical community to most, if not all, manufacturers. A number
of which are now out of business. (Hmmm, perhaps you could make a
correlation there: "Company rejects Fandrich's teachings--goes out of
business.") As may be, you are just one more of a very long and colorful
list.

Over the years, however, I have had the satisfaction of seeing many of those
early teachings--soundboard function & structure, string scale principles,
rim structure, the importance of the backscale, etc.--gradually come to be
accepted by at least some of the leaders within technical community. Enough
so that I am now have the privilege of attending classes at conventions and
conferences and listen as various instructors who may well have never met me
or heard of me presenting things very matter-of-factly that I was roundly
criticized for in the 1970s. And this does my troublesome heart good. Times
have changed and even the piano industry moves on. Or it doesn't and it
continues to decline.


>
> That is: what were the duplex scale tones before tuning, and to what tone
did
> you tune them in relation to the speaking length.

I have no idea. Most of the work I've done with back scale duplexes was some
20+ years back. Whatever notes and records I kept from the experience are
quite buried. The three types of piano I remember most clearly are a Baldwin
SD-6, several M&H BBs and a particularly frustrating Steinway B. The
Steinway B was a roughly ten-year old piano (at the time) that had an
exceptionally poor killer octave region. I was assured by several of the
leading rebuilders of the day that restringing and a new set of hammers
would solve the problem. It didn't.

The technique would surely have been similar in each case. I would have
measured the speaking length of the string and compared that to the length
of the backscale to determine the partial to which the back duplex was
intended to be tuned. I would have then calculated the proper length and
moved the back string rest to that point. I would have finished up by
fine-tuning it's location by ear and/or my trusty Yamaha PT-4. I remember
trying to slide
the Model B's cast bars around and finally gave up in frustration, replacing
them with hand made individual rests made of square brass bar stock with the
top half milled to an inverted V-shape. All of the pianos in question had
sustain problems (primarily) in the first treble section. That's why I was
fussing with them. In none of these pianos was I able to noticeably improve
sustain time by tuning the backscale to what was (presumably) the intended
harmonic. It is clear to me now that all of these pianos needed new (and
somewhat redesigned) soundboards. It wasn't then, it was just frustrating.

Dan, you give quite a list of manufacturers who, in your opinion, use tuned
backscales. You go on to use this list in an attempt to prove the validity
of the
technology. I would suggest that in reality very few of these manufacturers
actually do use tuned backscales. In my experience most of those in your
list
simply put a nice looking casting having a series of molded-in string rests
back there and hope for the best. These castings are placed in the general
vicinity of someone's idea of where a tuned duplex string rest should go and
that's it. They are most often not 'tuned' at all. Hence, on examination
your list proves only that many, if not most, of these manufacturers regard
the
technology purely as a marketing exercise. "We have to put something back
there--why not make it something we can advertise as a 'feature.'"

As to results? So far on this list I have only read one post by someone who
has actually attended one of your presentations and he seems to have come
away some unimpressed. I will, however, continue to reserve my judgment
until I have that opportunity myself.

On the other hand, several folks on this list have had the opportunity to
play pianos I've either remanufactured and/or designed and/or built. None of
these instruments would have had 'tuned duplex' backscales. Check out a
properly prepped Walter 190 grand, listen to what folks have had to say
about the treble of the Fandrich 122 Vertical. Ask Susan Kline (if she is
still speaking to you) about the piano shown at my presentation to Oregon
Day a couple of years back. (I did not do the remanufacturing of this
instrument but I did do the design work on which the remanufacturing was
based.) Ask Ron Nossaman about his experience which is based on the same (or
at least very similar) design principles that I use. Ask Ron Overs how much
credit he gives to tuned backscales in the pianos he is building up. I'm
sure there are others who I hope will not be insulted by my failure to
mention by name.

No, it is still my opinion that the tuned duplex backscale is one of those
tools that was developed to cope with what was essentially a soundboard
design problem. As we learn to design and build better soundboards the value
of things like the tuned duplexes not only lose their value, they become
problems themselves.

As I have said repeatedly on this list, in the Journal (see particularly the
article, "If It Ain't Broke-Break it! [There is No Such Thing as a Finished
Product], October, 1995) and in my various classes: Time, and piano design,
must move on. At least it must if the piano industry--much of which seems
now to be in its death throws--is to survive. Without the availability of
sub-poverty level wages in so-called 'developing' countries the market would
be a fraction of what it is today. There are many cultural and social
reasons for all of this, but it doesn't take a whole lot of critical
examination to discern that much of the industry's vitality has been lost.

In the book of Proverbs (29:18 for anyone interested) it says, "Where there
is no vision the people perish...." This industry has plodded along with
very little vision far too long. It has clung to its history and its
outmoded technologies far too long. It's time to move on.

Regards,

Del