Rear Duplex

[Richard Brekne]

Delwin D Fandrich wrote:

Again.. very good stuff written by Del.. I will ask just one more question for
now.. and then I think I shall er.... let you get back to work.. grin. From what
I have read through in my saved posts, and especially these last from you, Ron,
and Brian,  I get the following relating to this back scale length;

Freedom of bridge movement is of primary concern. The relationship to the string
scale design (mensur) is of equal importance ?? Then finally if these first two
concerns allow for it, and the basic design of the system calls for it, the
whole thing can be set up so that some sort of "tuned" backscale length is
present.

btw.. just how much regard to the bridge movement is needed before it becomes
overkill..

Richard Brekne
I.C.P.T.G.  N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway



>
> > If it doesnt serve this purpose, why
> > is it called by many a "duplex" ??
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Most of what I have to say on this subject has already been printed in the
> Journal or on this list, but...
>
> This is another area fraught with terminology problems.  Which was why early
> on I coined the phrase "back scale" to cover that portion of the string
> between the rear bridge pin (or whatever is being used as a bridge
> termination device) and the rear counterbearing bar or hitchpin (or whatever
> else is being used as the rear termination device.)
>
> Del