[CAUT] Duplex scales

[RicB]

David.

RicB wrote:

Sigh...

I do not believe there is anyone at all who can be ascribed this
sentiment.  That said... it is no more (or less) bad science then what
Jim agreed with from my post.  Bad science abounds and it comes in many
guises. On that point, and without further qualification, I am sure we
all agree.

To whit David Love replies:

    It was probably this statement that prompted my remark.  

    "Strikes me that it is also quite clear that the market has made its
    statement on the matter quite clear.  I believe that companies like
    Yamaha,
    Steinway that employ the duplex system do so very consciously and know
    exactly what and why they are doing."  Ric B

In what way can this statement be construed to represent a scientific 
argument ?  You suprise me..  you just voiced a complaint about 
ascribing meanings to others words. But really, how anyone could choose 
to view these words as some kind of scientific arguement is beyond me.

What it does represent is a simple fact. It is true that many of the 
heavyweights in our buisness do in fact subscribe to the duplex system. 
To ignore or simply write off is not something I care to do.  What you 
decide to do with these kinds of facts is of course your own affair.


    You are right about bad science.  It does abound.  One of my
    favorite books
    that speaks to this is "It's a Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. 
    Worth
    checking out.  Not about pianos but the point is worth taking.  My
    approach
    lately has been to simply question many basic assumptions.  I think
    it's a
    healthy approach.  Of course, not all are rejected, nor should they
    be, but
    some are suspect and often empirical evidence (read trial and error)
    is the
    best we have to go on.  Many decisions are made that way including
    some by
    your own TW guru David Stanwood (whose many ideas I embrace btw).  Many
    choices about what sounds better, voicing techniques, type of
    spruce, rib
    materials (the list goes on and on) are made without the benefit of hard
    scientific data.  If we'd waited for hard science in order to
    justify our
    next step we'd still be twiddling on doodlesacks.

    Cheers.      

    David Love

Ah... Yes... Demons do abound.  In fact... thats one of my main 
concerns.  I see no reason at all to replace one demon with another.  Of 
course its healthy to question basic assumptions. I agree that we need 
to take leaps of faith... follow up on ideas.  All fine and dandy.  As 
long as facts and beliefs are clearly seperated along the way.  That 
should be no trouble for someone as yourself  who openly just declared...

    "I can't speak to your style or motivations, mine are simply to
    share my experience with what seems to work and what doesn't. 
    Hopefully it is useful to someone.  All shared experiences
    contribute to a body of empirical evidence-the best we can hope for
    in most cases.  Whether or not people decide to employ those changes
    is, of course, entirely up to them."

And David.  Stanwood is not my guru. Never has been.  David Stanwood is 
a personal friend. One whom I have great respect for but far from always 
agree with.  Just ask his camp.


Sigh... once again.  Why cant people just accept that there are 
different strokes for different folks... and that differences are not a 
detriment.  The front duplex has many fans. Folks that have indeed 
thought through the issues involved thoroughly and come up with a 
different conclusion then yourself.  What can I say ? 

RicB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20061025/c8e824a8/attachment.html