<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html>   David Love wrote: The issue and the quantifying was referring to was how much backscale length is needed to insure optimum movement of the soundboard in any given section.  I am aware of the arguments about duplex tuning and have not found it to be a significant contributor to tone or sustain.  In fact, tuned duplexes on the tuning pin side of the speaking length I find to be a detriment and will confess to detuning them whenever possible.  I am aware of your claims of 300% improvement in sustain when the duplex is tuned. I would be very curious to hear what criteria you have used for this conclusion tho, I agree with you about the front duplex myself.  The 300 % thing I think we can all drop. Its not really what he said to begin with, and perhaps we can all allow for a little over enthusiasm for ones ideas eh ??  I will admit to a total skepticism for this claim.  With respect to Steinway pianos, there are many changes that are routinely made when rebuilding, remanufacturing, however you wish to refer to it.  The recent thread referred to such things as the addition of cutoff bars, belly bracing, modifying the bass bridge cantilever to increase backscale length, detuning the front duplexes, rescaling, squ! aring the bridge notching in the low tenor and bass sections, crowing the ribs, etc., etc..  All of these "redesigns", will improve the overall performance of the piano and I don't consider it in any way a desecration of the original, just an improvement.  Technology and knowledge is always changing.  Unwillingness to adopt improvements is often a marketing misperception and an unwillingness to let go of what is perceived as a success.  I am not bound by such constraints.  This argument will go on forever, whether a significant change also constitutes turning an instrument into something other then it was meant to be, or whether its just an improvment. Personally, I take more the conservative view here. You want to redesign the scaling, put a new bridge configuration on it, feed it lots of fish so its belly will get nice and fat and responsive.... whatever... go for it and more power to you. 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.    David Love <a href="mailto:davidlovepianos@earthlink.net">davidlovepianos@earthlink</a> JMV   -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A> <A HREF="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html">http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html</A> <A HREF="http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html">http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html</A>  </html>