> Okay, I guess if somebody says that having no cantilever, and longer > back scale, is "better" and that this is something that should be > accepted as a "fact" I get the impression that it implies that everyone > else is wrong <G>. Could be, but I didn't say that, and you shouldn't be indicating such from impressions of implications, particularly second hand ones, now should you? >No big deal, I really admire and prefer the attitude > that constantly challenges assumptions and authority. But sometimes > there are dangers lurking in having "proven" the other side wrong. > Granted, the pro-cantilever crowd justify their design on false > premises: "it puts the bearing out in a more resonant part of the > soundboard;" "it allows for longer string length, which obviously is to > be preferred." This is twaddle, as you have very ably pointed out. But > that doesn't necessarily make shorter back length and cantilever a bad > design feature per se. Lots of people do the "right" thing for the > "wrong" reason - and vice versa <G>. > Regards, > Fred Sturm Hmmm. My impression of the implications here is that you didn't say anything, but it's tough to tell, so I'll leave it alone. I think I'll stick with such cause and effect relationships as I'm able to grasp. This double reversal fuzzy stuff is beyond me. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC