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

[David Love]

I've heard this argument before and I think it's pretty silly.  If you put
a set of Renner or Abel hammers on a NY Steinway should you not call it a
Steinway?  Probably, the change of hammer will create a greater change in
the perception of tone than many other things you might do.  Does that mean
that anybody who puts in a soundboard which does not adhere to the exact
design of the original should not call it a Steinway?  What about Renner
actions, Kluge keys, magnetic balancing?  I don't see any of the things I
mentioned in th original post as possible "improvements" as things that are
out of bounds in terms of Steinway design, or, as I mentioned in another
post, aren't things that don't exist on some models.  Many of the things
that Steinway did on their "lesser" models were probably a function of
cost, not necessarily to achieve particular goals in performance.   My
question on rear duplexes was a theoretical one inquiring about the
importance of longer backscale versus tuned rear duplexes.  Or are telling
me we shouldn't even be asking those questions?  

David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net




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. 
  
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