Dan, Dale and list, Dan wrote; >In response to your inquiry regarding the value of tuning the various duplex >scales I will venture these remarks regarding tuning the front and rear >duplex scales. But first I would refer you to Steinway's original patent in >which he states that tuning the front and rear duplex scales contributes >immensely to the sustain and the tone quality. Many claims made in patent documents have in time proved to be incorrect. We must be mindful here that Henry Steinway was NOT a GOD, he was just a human like the rest of us. We all are capable of making worthwhile discoveries, along with a few mistakes along the way. I don't share Steinway's conviction about tuning the front duplexes. Furthermore, the noisy characteristics of so many treble sections in Steinway pianos should further add to such doubt. And they are not alone, the clones are just as noisy. >Although it may seem somewhat obvious, I would >like to point out that since Steinways integration of the duplex scale >feature in scale design in 1884, Steinway pianos have been at the forefront >of piano manufacture. Forefront of marketing most certainly, but as for being at the forefront of piano manufacture - today they are still building basically the same piano as they did a century ago. Are there any fields of endeavour where there has not been an advance in knowledge and understanding over the period of a century? Certainly not. Should anyone be prepared to make such a claim, we should take it as being highly insulting to a great many thinkers who have carried forward the technology of piano making. While I certainly believe piano technology needs a good kick along at present - it will happen. But it won't happen for companies who are prepared to lay back and wallow in their past achievements, as some have been known to do. Past achievements are just that. New achievements are still waiting to be discovered. Only those who are prepared to get off their butt and do the hard yards will discover the new knowledge which is waiting to be found. I believe progress in piano technology has been hijacked over the last century by some in our industry who have been lazy and arrogant. It is not the way forward. This is an exciting time to be alive. A whole sea of knowledge in our discipline is waiting to be discovered. Let's get out there and go for it, instead of wallowing in past glories. I have no time for it. And remember, back in the late eighteen hundreds a spokesman from a leading piano maker at the time, Erard, said that the development of the modern piano was complete, and there was nothing left to be discovered. A hundred years later another head of another firm made a similar claim. How the wheel turns again - how arrogance can cause the dog of the day to fall off his pedestal. Where is Erard today? That's right, trying to catch up with the past century and a half of progress. >To further support the value of this element of scale >design it should be noted that many pianos of the world's most accaimed >instruments have incorporated this feature with their own individual >variations. Agreed, but I suspect that most manufacturers are building Steinway clones for marketing reasons, and not for reasons to do with tone building. >FRONT DUPLEXES > >My research and experiments have been, so far, exclusively concerned with >rear duplexes and I have acquired virtually no technical information >regarding the effect of tuning or not tuning front duplexes. However, in >defense of the tuning of front duplexes I would be inclined to consider the >value of Steinway's and Helmholtz's input at least equivalent to the value of >some of our noted theoretician/technicians. I wouldn't be inclined to consider the value of anyone's input without also scrutinising any claim. I believe we should all look at each individual design element as if it is for the first time, and come to our own conclusions. >In weighing this point it would >be helpful to have any technical test results from these front duplex tuning >naysayers that support their claim. I have done tests which to me, indisputably discount any claimed benefit in arranging the front duplex to be tuned. Tuned front duplexes produce string noise, regardless of the hardness and radius of the bearing bars (and I have proven it to be so with tests in August 2000 - OK Ron N, I won't argue with you about short tuned duplexes here because I haven't tested this just yet. But I found myself un-inclined to do so at this time, since the detuned duplex is proving to be very satisfactory, and the Samick plate I am using won't allow me to go any shorter in duplex length. I admit that even shorter detuned lengths may ultimately prove to be even better. I'll let you know next year when further research is done). The piano we exhibited in Reno should also have demonstrated this point for those of you who heard the instrument, and many did. >So far I have not seen or heard anything >except opinion. You obviously didn't read my post on this matter earlier in this discussion Dan, when I posted the speaking length and front duplex length of note no. C#53 on our 7'4" production piano no. 001, and its subsequent fix. I can assure you Dan that my views are not at all based on opinion. I'm not a bit interested in opinion alone; it must be accompanied by serious testing. >I would offer in support of my position that Hermann >Helmholtz and CFT Steinway did not rely on opinion. As far as history relates >they were basing their theories on empirical data. As we must also do. To fail to do so would be fraudulent. But just because Helmholtz and CFT Steinway came to a certain view, this does not automatically prove anything. While we can only have considerable respect for both men (especially Helmholz, what a master of so many 'trades'. He made the first serious studies into weather prediction and also invented the ophthalmoscope - quite apart from his achievements in fundamental acoustic research). But regardless, I cannot share their view on the value of a tuned front duplex. The pianos we are now building with detuned front duplexes further reinforces my view. Please understand that I still believe there is more yet to be achieved in this area, even though I am relatively pleased with our latest version. >REAR DUPLEXES > >Dale, it appears to me you have got back to the courtroom a little tardy. The >verdict has been issued and the only problem is: the judge wasn't there. YOU >are the judge. We must all be the judge. Dale has heard our piano haven't you Dale? What did you think about the top end of our piano at Reno? It was front detuned and rear tuned. Dan you also mentioned Paul Monachino. He also saw our piano (our stand was right next to Masin and Hamlin's), though I am not sure if we discussed the detuning of the front duplex. I remember him commenting on our rear duplex being tuned. >Let me give you an idea of who is on the jury. Fazioli, Paolo is certainly tuning the rear duplex. But I have yet to measure the front lengths of a Faz. We have a 278 here in Sydney which we maintain - have yet to measure it. >Boston The Boston does not have individual blocks in the rear duplex system, and is therefore un-tunable in the rear, as are Steinways with the cast sections of duplex blocks. >IF IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE TUNED , AND IT CAN BE TUNED, IT SHOULD BE TUNED. I agree Dan, but of all the manufacturers you mentioned only Fazioli and Mason and Hamlin have truly tunable rear duplexs (the blocks must be individually moveable to be tuneable). Cast groups of rear duplex blocks cannot be tuned. We manufacture individually adjustable rear blocks for our pianos also (see our website overhead image of No. 003 at http://www.overspianos.com.au/OS003.jpeg - rear duplex lengths from the top, 6 unisons, 6 a fifth higher, 12 an octave higher, 6 an octave and a fifth higher and 8 at a double octave). Dan, as a postscript to this post, please understand that I am not directing any of the above comments to you personally. I actually think I agree with what you have written to date about tuning the rear duplex. Also you acknowledge in your post that you have done little work on the front duplex. But after doing tests in August 2000, I am now completely against the concept of tuning the front duplexes. While it is possible to hear and tune the rear lengths, the front lengths are just noise. Such a percussive attack on the front end of the tone might suit those who are little hard of hearing, but those who can still hear adequately at 4K, a noisy font duplex can be a nasty business. Sincerely, Ron O -- ______________________________ Website: http://www.overspianos.com.au Email: mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au ______________________________
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC