<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> 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: <blockquote>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 </blockquote> 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. <blockquote> 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 </blockquote> 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... <blockquote>"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." </blockquote> 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 </body> </html>