<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial" bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2> Ric Wrote<BR><BR>I would just have loved to compare the amount of real leakage before and <BR>after on this job.  I've seen and done this exact kind of job myself on <BR>a number of occasions and find that while string noise is affected <BR><STRONG>significantly, leakage across to the front length per se is nearly <BR>unchanged</STRONG>. Demonstrated by the fact that when you measure the output of <BR>the un damped speaking length for similar pluck strengths of the front <BR>length one is pressed to find a measurable difference.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT size=3> Hi Ric</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>   Yes , I love A --B comparisons..they don't lie</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>  I'm not sure we are objecting to the same thing though.  My opinion is that I dislike the amount of noise coming from the front duplex, Of any piano when it distracts from the sound by the sheer extraneous- ness of it, & usually I believe it is caused from the energy leaking under the capo due to low draft angles & worn capos.  To me this is demonstratable in pianos I have worked with & is not a question in my mind.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>  I rebuilt a Older 1911 B with a low draft angle. I left it unchanged. It got  a new board etc. It seems to bleed or create a good deal of extraneous duplex noise. Although I don't like the noise, it is still a wonderful sounding piano by all who play it , including me.  However,  I would find the sound more attractive if it didn't make all that racket. Again that's my story & I'm sticking to it.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>  The Stwy B I just delivered did break a few strings prior to the decision to rebuild it but the hammers were hard & flat , obviously lack of hammer care was a contributor. BTW this is a teaching piano.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3> SO much of our results are subjective but when they are reaffirmed over & over again by us then we / I begin to regard them as a fact  comfortable of espousing.  I think we on this list do this all the time.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>  I think we as a sensitive group of technicians are sometimes worry too much about what other people think. If we have a good rational reason for asserting a thing & can speak of it inteligentlly, then we have done out best to state a reasonable postion & we can take confidence in our own experience.  It is, after all ....All we have. That and an open mind.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>  Regards</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>  Dale</FONT></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT size=3></FONT></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2><BR><BR>Again... its my experience that leakage across to the front length per <BR>se and string noises are not all that related.  Leakage as it does <BR>relate to string noises doesn't get past the termination... that energy <BR>is all used up in the functioning of the buzzing between the string and <BR>the termination.<BR><BR>As for the new  B.... I'd very much like to know whether or not their <BR>basic front length specs were changed along with the counter bearing angle.<BR><BR>btw... I agree one hundred percent on the comment about opinions. Well said.<BR><BR>Cheers<BR>RicB</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>