<html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> See comments.   David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com   -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Ric Brekne Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:40 AM To: pianotech Subject: [CAUT] Baldwin SD-10   Hi David:   Well, as I said in my opening comment to this thread.  There has been all manner of speculative disagreement on this matter since the beginning of time it would seem. So it does not surprise me to find that has not changed.  For my part, I stick with my experience until I find a good reason to do otherwise.    Likewise.  The proofs are largely empirical. I’ve found that modifying the front duplex in the manner described helps.   A well functioning duplex scale is dependent on the condition (profile and hardness) of the termination as much as it is length and counter bearing angle.  String noise coming from any given front duplex is not the same as the sound contribution coming from the front length  itself.  Its pretty simple stuff to demonstrate how a well functioning duplex scale can work. I'm not going to get into a protracted discussion about the woahs and/or wows of the front duplex, as we wont find any ground for agreement me thinks. And thats not what Alan was asking for to begin with.  I will, however repeat what  seems obvious and simple to me. That leakage through the termination is not equivalent with noise coming from the duplex, and that not all energy that leaks through the termination is simply lost to heat.  If the picture was so bleek as that then there is just no way anyone would ever use it. In fact, it is employed in a large majority of pianos being made today.   Leakage is equivalent to noise in my view but this may be a simple definition of terms.   For me, leakage is not a desirable thing.  I don’t believe companies use a design feature that they believe encourages leakage, but  that companies continue to employ a particular  design feature often has mostly to do with habit.   Once again, as to the Grotrian I've written about previously. The only significant changes done was to Bechstein-ize the back and front lengths.    Changing the backscale is a different matter altogether and  can influence tone because it can change soundboard response.    The effect was very obvious and one could clearly hear both piano designs comming through. As far as changing Steinway front duplexes to something like Nossamans grand in Rochester. I've seen this kind of thing done as a job in itself.  No way you are going to get me to buy into the idea that this doesn't significantly change the character of the sound.   I haven’t found this to be the case.   Nossaman’s piano had a number of significant changes including a new soundboard design, cut off, treble fish, altered grain angle, modified scale, new bridge, vertical hitches: isolating the contribution of the modified duplex alone is not possible,   Nor do I see it shown that power and sustain are significantly improved. Clarity is indeed affected anytime one eliminates string noise alone... but that is an independent matter.   Finally, if there is a study that clearly shows the relationship between power/sustain vs front duplex length and counter bearing angle as you suggest below   I didn’t suggest that, please read again.  I said only in so far as the propensity for leakage and loss of energy is reduced is power and sustain improved, or let’s say maximized.   In and of itself it will not improve power or sustain.  Same goes for clarity.     ,  I would love to see it.  We all asked Duplex Dan for data supporting his claims...   It would be nice to have data but since we can’t compare side by side pianos with only individual variables altered and be sure that all other things remain the same we often have to rely on empirical evidence and best guess.    and never got any.  The same desire for documented quantification goes all. To my knowledge the only one on the lists who has supplied us with anything along these lines was Calin T on pianotech.  Might be good for interesteds to review his experiment.   The beautiful thing about diversity in piano building philosophy is that it allows for a very colorful field of piano tone variation. This has been the case for very long indeed, despite the obvious preference the market at large has (for whatever reasons) for the Steinway sound.  Bechstein, Bosendorfer, Bluthner, and more all have survived nicely whilst offering up alternatives.  This is all well and fine and we are all supposed to end up with our individual preferences.  The problem comes between folks when one or another starts trying to prove conclusively how this or the other instrument or feature thereof is fundamentally better then another.    I don’t see anyone trying to prove anything about whether one instrument is better than another, rather it has to do with whether  some design features work better than others to accomplish a given mechanical requirement.  In the case of Alan’s original concern, the Baldwin SD-10 counterbearing arrangement appears to be a poor design.    We see that such argumentation always ends up forcing data to fit the conclusion...   I can’t speak to your style or motivations, mine are simply to share my experience with what seems to work and what doesn’t.  Hopefully it is useful to someone.  All shared experiences contribute to a body of empirical evidence—the best we can hope for in most cases.  Whether or not people decide to employ those changes is, of course, entirely up to them.       no matter what one is arguing for or against.  And even the most quantifiable data simply must take into consideration what in the end is the final determinant.... what people, pianists, the market..  actually end up choosing as their preference.   Ok... grin.. nuf musing about on this subject.  Alan, I believe you got what you were after from the original thread line.  Y'all have a good day.   Cheers RicB          Long, low angled duplexes are more likely to lose energy (leak and make    noise) than short, low angled duplexes.  That's pretty    demonstrable.  Noisy    duplexes (where there is leakage) have demonstrably less power and    sustain    than non leaking duplexes.  That's also very demonstrable and seems like    pretty simple stuff.  There seems to be an optimum combination of    length and    angle that reduces leakage and doesn't cause excess drag or wear on    the capo    bar.  Fandrich has quantified this in some previous writings, I believe.    Added mass in the capo bar always seems to help with loss of energy.    Minimizing loss of energy appears to help with both power and    sustain.  I    think it would be a march of folly to try and create a counterbearing    situation that optimizes the amount of leakage in the hope of having    some    reflected back to the speaking length.  I suppose that's personal    opinion    though I like to think of it as common sense.         As far as the Grotrian goes, my only comment is that it's hard to    isolate    variables.  When a complete rebuild is done, it's not always possible to    tell whether the change in tone is due to a change in some    particular item    or whether it comes from some combined effect from several changes.  My    experience (anecdotal evidence of course) from having changed many    Steinway    counterbearing areas and left most other things alone (except for new    strings, bridge renotching, and capo shaping) is that there is no    noticeable    change in the character of the tone, however there is a noticeable    change in    the clarity, power, sustain and propensity for leakage.  That might    be heard    as a change in tonal character but I don't consider it one.  Rather, it    seems more like a mechanical optimization of what's already there; tonal    changes, in this case, being limited to changes in soundboard response.    Whether or not my "perceptions" constitute absolute proof in pure    scientific    terms, I'd have to say they don't and could be construed as a simple    matter    of opinion.       David Love    davidlovepianos at comcast.net    www.davidlovepianos.com   </div> </body> </html>