Comments interspersed: ----- Original Message ----- > I'm not sure I agree Terry. In your last post to Andrew you state > > "When we "detune" a front or backscale, don't we specifically try to > avoid a fractional length of that note's speaking length to quiet > the front and/or backscales?" > > which implies it DOES make a "whit" if the back duplex is tuned to a > specific relationship to the speaking length. Correct. Did I not say that? Perhaps I wasn't clear. Indeed, that is my understanding of "tuned" backscale designs - make the backscale some fractional length of that note's speaking length. The only thing I was trying to point out was that if C6 (for example) has a "tuned" backscale, some partial of C6 should excite the C6 backscale. The original post suggested that C6 speaking length would not excite a fractional-length C6 backscale, but rather some other note elsewhere on the piano would - and yes, other notes will also excite C6, but my point was that C6 will also excite it's own "tuned" backscale. > Once accepted that > certain relationships to the speaking result cause clear and predictable > acoustic results... you are immediately into a judgement call as to > whether the results are desirable or not. Agree. Correct. But I was not making any comment on whether the "tuned" duplex scale is desirable or not. > Strikes me that manufacturers are all out to make things as cost > effective as possible... if the whole basic back duplex idea was totally > ridiculous to begin with... no amount of marketing can account for the > fact that so many manufacturers are wasting so much time, money and > resources putting them in. I'd disagree with that. If it sells, why not waste time, money and resources. Can you say "CAPITALISM!"? > Another thing... when I stop to think about > it.... I dont see any data supporting the idea that the basic Steinway > back scale idea doesnt work. I just hear a lot of claims. I wasn't commenting on that. However, since you bring it up, I claim to have no claims - only an opinion - I don't care much for them, IMHO they are rather noisy. > Today I used > a bit of ekstra time tuning the top 6 notes on a C I service. I tuned > the back lengths to exactly the same frequency as the speaking > lengths.... I got a very clear and definite improvement in sound. Much > cleaner, increased sustain and volume. At least thats what my ears told > me, and it seemed pretty darned obvious. Okay. I've never tried to tune them to anything. Maybe I will some day. > Cheers > RicB PS: Welcome back! Last week I tuned a piano for a woman who just moved back to the USA from 8 years in Germany. We talked about the laid-back lifestyle and attitude that seems to prevail in Europe (and Scandinavia, no doubt) compared to here in the USA. I really haven't had a vacation in 19 years, unless you call four days at a PTG convention a vaction. I envy that lifstyle. It sounds very good. > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> /"On any given string, the duplex segment will not match the > pitch of the > >> speaking segment of the sting. (It cannot because these two > segments are > >> different lengths)."/ > >> Since when? I mean, assuming the duplex segment was somewhere > close to > >> being "tuned". > >> Terry Farrell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20070820/806ee81b/attachment.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC