<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <style>  </style>  </head> <body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#606420"> <div class=Section1> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I have read quite a few postings on duplex scale issues. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t think anyone has mentioned hammer strike/string antinode relationship as an item to check in this regard. Getting the sweet spot right on the money through the whole capo section won’t fix capo buzzes, etc., but it will minimize or eliminate weird resonances in the front duplex, and emphasize consonant ones, without encouraging them to be overly loud, and sometimes make extra long duplexes (such as on early Steinway A’s) less distracting.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> About rebuilding, vs. buying new pianos: I agree with those who think restoration is the way to go. Of course, real skill on the part of the restorer is presumed. Inept rebuilding can be most unsuccessful and create skeptics. But it always strikes me that those techs who believe that new is always better don’t give concrete technical reasons why that must be so, rather it’s always a gut feeling, probably based on hearing more nice new pianos, than nice rebuilt ones. If rebuilt pianos were necessarily inferior, I as a technician would really want to know howcome. This is not meant as a slap at anyone who is anywhere along the spectrum of experience, just an invitation to one of the real joys of the profession. Detailed observation and deduction, along with good taste empower us. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Bill Schneider<o:p></o:p> Michigan State University School of Music<o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html>