Rear Duplex Bars on Steinways: was Baldwin Accujust...

Richard Brekne Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no
Sat, 10 May 2003 09:33:48 +0200


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment


David Love wrote:

The issue and the quantifying was referring to was how much backscale
length is needed to insure optimum movement of the soundboard in any
given section.  I am aware of the arguments about duplex tuning and have
not found it to be a significant contributor to tone or sustain.  In
fact, tuned duplexes on the tuning pin side of the speaking length I
find to be a detriment and will confess to detuning them whenever
possible.  I am aware of your claims of 300% improvement in sustain when
the duplex is tuned.

I would be very curious to hear what criteria you have used for this
conclusion tho, I agree with you about the front duplex myself.  The 300
% thing I think we can all drop. Its not really what he said to begin
with, and perhaps we can all allow for a little over enthusiasm for ones
ideas eh ??
 I will admit to a total skepticism for this claim.  With respect to
Steinway pianos, there are many changes that are routinely made when
rebuilding, remanufacturing, however you wish to refer to it.  The
recent thread referred to such things as the addition of cutoff bars,
belly bracing, modifying the bass bridge cantilever to increase
backscale length, detuning the front duplexes, rescaling, squ! aring the
bridge notching in the low tenor and bass sections, crowing the ribs,
etc., etc..  All of these "redesigns", will improve the overall
performance of the piano and I don't consider it in any way a
desecration of the original, just an improvement.  Technology and
knowledge is always changing.  Unwillingness to adopt improvements is
often a marketing misperception and an unwillingness to let go of what
is perceived as a success.  I am not bound by such constraints.
This argument will go on forever, whether a significant change also
constitutes turning an instrument into something other then it was meant
to be, or whether its just an improvment. Personally, I take more the
conservative view here. You want to redesign the scaling, put a new
bridge configuration on it, feed it lots of fish so its belly will get
nice and fat and responsive.... whatever... go for it and more power to
you. Just dont call it a Steinway anymore. Have the confidence in your
own "improvements" to put your own mark along side the orgional
manufacturers, clearly distancing the instrument from Steinways own
intent.

 David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink

JMV


--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
UiB, Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/02/ec/c7/07/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--


This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC