>Er..... sorry folks if I stepped on any toes. I just wrote basically, that >there >were two opposing schools of thoughts and nobody has proven anything yet.... I >thought that was a neutural enough position to take while answering in part a >loaded question to begin with... I guess if you try and take away the chance to >argue about something... well you will get argument about that as well >then...grin. > >Welcome to Jamaica Have a Nice Day >-- >Richard Brekne No, sorry Ric, I wasn't offended, or trying to be argumentative. Just not in good composition mode today, I suppose. What I mean is that I've read some pretty well thought out and accurately specified declaratives about front duplexes that do work just that way in actual practice, by my personal experience. The difference between some writings and others is that some others don't accurately reflect what is actually seen and heard in pianos. Among the writers who have, with their own three hands, physically installed different types of front duplexes in an attempt to improve the poor performance of the "usual" tuned configuration, have similar observations. So what constitutes proof? A published book, or patent? I can see where speculation unsupported by logic, physics, and actual prototypes would be suspect, but I thought you said you preferred untuned duplexes. Why is that? Beautiful Autumn day in my neighborhood. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC