The Duplex affect --an experiment

[Ron Nossaman]

> Agreed.  I think the one thing about tuned duplexes (rear duplexes that is,
> I'm in total agreement about the contributions, if you can call it that, of
> front tuned duplexes) is that they necessarily are shorter.  One of the side
> issues that you mention is backscale length.  If one of the goals of a tuned
> rear duplex is to create the illusion of greater sustain then a better and
> more direct benefit might be realized by increasing the backscale length,
> which means untuning it, so that the bridge is not tied down so much.  

Plucking those long back segments in my vertical hitch 
converted pianos produces hugely more sound and sustain than 
plucking the much shorter tuned rear duplex segments does. 
Since there's no direct correlation between speaking segment 
and rear duplex like there is in the front, I don't see the 
reason for tuned duplexes, especially when some of them are 
30mm long. I don't think those little guys will be beefing up 
or filling out the sound much. As you said in the other 
message, I can't tell the difference between tuned and 
mistuned duplexes. Even sitting through Duplex Dan's class as 
he described how much better it sounded, I really couldn't 
tell the difference.


>The
> direct benefits of that seem to be far greater than the indirect benefits of
> a tuned rear duplex, all other things being equal by which I mean that the
> rear duplex is not muted.  

I agree.


>As far a Dale's and Bob's experiment goes, it
> concurs with my findings that muted rear duplexes seem to have a drier sound
> than unmuted ones.  The same thing might very well be true of rear segments
> that sit on rest felt on the plate rather than aliquots or directly on the
> hard surface of the plate itself.  
> 
> David Love

Agreed again.
Ron N