<HTML>In a message dated 4/28/2002 3:12:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, grandrestorations@yahoo.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> .         Brian , Richard , Ron</BLOCKQUOTE>      I almost hate to wade in and muddy a good discussion but I just want to say Brian, that your statements are on the money. No body thinks the thing retains crown. So I'll let M&H marketing worry about their own consciences. Why this discussion hasn't arrived at the following statement sooner I don't know.    To my mind any time you stiffen anything structural in a piano rim you reduce the chance of energy losses which does what? It changes the imedance,which,  simply put is a good thing in my book when it comes to sustain and power. As Del said earlier on "he has written about it several times before" Just think the last time a paper clip, dead fly or slight buzz from whatever on the soundboard has totally disrupted the energy flow of the piano even at FFF. The piano energy system is very inefficient. I heard someone say once that even a 9 ft.  concert grand played at FFF is only producing about 1/2 watt of power.     I think the resonator has merit as an overall tonal impedance improvement device.It probably won't ever allow the rim to expand or move that's also good right? SOO That's it ,that's all there is.!!    I for one think the M&H guys would consider this marketing justification in and of itself. It just seems easier to explain it in a more dramatic and sales hyping kind of way to say it holds the crown.    Look It's like the government trying to Justify the income tax scheme. The've been lying about it so long they now believe it themselves contrary to recent improvements in information  and constitutional law. They simply can't change there minds now, otherwise it makes there predecessors look bad.   Also the thing is probably not that expensive to make or install. They make the rim in two pieces so drill a few extra holes and bolt it in place, what's the problem.  Probably  $500  bucks.   Just two more cents worth>>>>Dale Erwin>>>>>>>> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Although I can't see any reason to think that the centripetal tension resonator would have any significant impact on crown maintenance, I don't necessarily think of it as useless either. >>>>>>>>> In my primitive thinking, it ties together the various sections of the rim structure even beyond what the Mason & Hamlin's  massive inner and outer rim and beam structure goes, making it an even stronger (and more importantly at least in my mind) more rigid sub-assembly. By tying it all together, it would seem to me that stresses on a small area of the under structure would be transferred to other areas in a "share the load" kind of thing...  might even be an expanded version of the plate horn, where the horn is tied into the belly rail to add support to an already fairly strong plate structure.  That's my general thought on it, and indeed opinion. Best wishes, Brian T. =====</BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>