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