>Ron N, > > I like what you're doing. I see that you are in your robe with the sneakers >on and your wrists taped. But I don't see you ready to climb into the ring, >meaning when are you going to take those measurements yourself and then tune >the duplex scale and then take some more measurements. Theories are valuable >up to a point in piano technology as I know you know. Dan, I'm another, perhaps THE other, of those folks who think the tuned duplex was developed to attempt to partially [sic] compensate for soundboard performance deficiencies. You're correct that theories are valuable up to a point. Beyond that point, practical application should help indicate the relative merit of one particular theory to another - and the value of tuned duplexes isn't the only theory in existence. That is the part you seem to be missing here. Why not start your own study of soundboard design and function? A pretty good primer of the basics is available in Del's Journal articles and in the pianotech archives. Starting with this theoretical and logical basis, experiment. Build some soundboards and learn what works and what doesn't, and why. Discover for yourself the enhanced potential in tone production and treble sustain, irrespective of whether a tuned duplex was incorporated or not. Discover for yourself that as the efficiency of your soundboards, and treble sustain, increases, the tuned duplexes become increasingly superfluous. Like hammer voicing, tuning duplexes can only give you what the soundboard assembly has to offer, and neither can cure the percussive distorted attack and short sustain of the many many killer octaves out there. Oh yes. I have attended one of your classes. >My estimates of 1 to 5 >times are good and I will guarantee that they have proven to be true. You have guaranteed it, it just remains unsubstantiated and without useful detail. In what points in the scale could these 300%-500%, or 100%-300% sustain increases be expected? What were the pre-tuning and post-tuning sustain times of individual sections or octaves? Are we talking about 0.3 seconds improved to 1 second, or 0.5 to 1, or 3 to 6-9, or what? Your claims are very non specific, and don't connect with anything I've experienced in practice, so I'd like a little more specific information if you have it to give. >I will >also refund your money for any tools and products you buy if you are >unsatisfied with them. But I will charge you to show you knew what you were >doing when you tuned the duplex. This is known as an escape clause. >I do have an objection to the tone of your message, however. And that >objection is "You apparently want to be King of the HIll, and want to demean >and depose CFT Steinway as the inventor". Who's quote is that, and what is it in reference to? You are apparently reading a lot more into what I have written than I wrote. I have no intention of demeaning CFT. He was a smart fellow and a fine engineer, but as far as tuning duplex scales goes, I couldn't care less who invented them, nor how many manufacturers incorporate them into their designs. They wouldn't work any differently under anyone's name. Please note too, the difference between inventing something, and patenting it. CFT patented the duplex scale. Have you bothered to look up that patent number Phil Ford posted for us? That would be #13960, in case you have misplaced it. You might find it interesting if you can get past the absence of the letters CFT in the header. >Before you continue this attack on >such a prolific, accomplished, dedicated and humble icon you should at least >tune a half dozen duplexes yourself. Again, CFT is not the duplex scale, and the duplex scale is not CFT. You are not tuning CFT, and I am not questioning the necessity of CFT. These are entirely separate entities, and the inventor and/or patent holder have no bearing whatsoever on the function of the duplex, and therefor are of no interest whatsoever in the matter of duplex function. >Then your expertise, ingenuity and >devotion may be worth recognizing. Until then, it is suspect. Don't stop >there. We are all interested in your progress. > >Dan Franklin As we are in yours. Please keep us informed on the continuing status of your new soundboard research endeavors. If you do it right, you'll really like the results, and your treble sustain times will increase dramatically. There's a brave new world of piano design out there for anyone interested in expanding their horizons. Good luck on your quest. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC