<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial>Comments interspersed:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM>----- Original Message ----- </EM></FONT> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM>> I'm not sure I agree Terry. In your last post to Andrew you state<BR>> <BR>>    "When we "detune" a front or backscale, don't we specifically try to<BR>>    avoid a fractional length of that note's speaking length to quiet<BR>>    the front and/or backscales?"<BR>> <BR>> which implies it DOES make a "whit" if the back duplex is tuned to a <BR>> specific relationship to the speaking length. </EM></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM> </EM></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>Correct. Did I not say that? Perhaps I wasn't clear. Indeed, that is my understanding of "tuned" backscale designs - make the backscale some fractional length of that note's speaking length. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>The only thing I was trying to point out was that if C6 (for example) has a "tuned" backscale, some partial of C6 should excite the C6 backscale. The original post suggested that C6 speaking length would not excite a fractional-length C6 backscale, but rather some other note elsewhere on the piano would - and yes, other notes will also excite C6, but my point was that C6 will also excite it's own "tuned" backscale.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM></EM></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM>> Once accepted that <BR>> certain relationships to the speaking result cause clear and predictable <BR>> acoustic results... you are immediately into a judgement call as to <BR>> whether the results are desirable or not.<BR></EM></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM></EM></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT size=3>Agree. Correct. But I was not making any comment on whether the "tuned" duplex scale is desirable or not.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR><EM>> Strikes me that manufacturers are all out to make things as cost <BR>> effective as possible... if the whole basic back duplex idea was totally <BR>> ridiculous to begin with... no amount of marketing can account for the <BR>> fact that so many manufacturers are wasting so much time, money and <BR>> resources putting them in.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>I'd disagree with that. If it sells, why not waste time, money and resources. Can you say "CAPITALISM!"?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM>> Another thing... when I stop to think about <BR>> it.... I dont see any data supporting the idea that the basic Steinway <BR>> back scale idea doesnt work.  I just hear a lot of claims.  </EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>I wasn't commenting on that. However, since you bring it up, I claim to have no claims - only an opinion - I don't care much for them, IMHO they are rather noisy.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM>> Today I used <BR>> a bit  of ekstra time tuning the top 6 notes on a C I service. I tuned <BR>> the back lengths to exactly the same frequency as the  speaking <BR>> lengths....  I got a very clear and definite improvement in sound. Much <BR>> cleaner, increased sustain and volume.  At least thats what my ears told <BR>> me, and it seemed pretty darned obvious. </EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><BR></EM><FONT size=3>Okay. I've never tried to tune them to anything. Maybe I will some day.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><EM> <BR>> Cheers<BR>> RicB</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>PS:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>Welcome back!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>Last week I tuned a piano for a woman who just moved back to the USA from 8 years in Germany. We talked about the laid-back lifestyle and attitude that seems to prevail in Europe (and Scandinavia, no doubt) compared to here in the USA. I really haven't had a vacation in 19 years, unless you call four days at a PTG convention a vaction. I envy that lifstyle. It sounds very good.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR>> <BR>>    ----- Original Message -----<BR>>     >> /"On any given string, the duplex segment will not match the<BR>>    pitch of the<BR>>     >> speaking segment of the sting. (It cannot because these two<BR>>    segments are<BR>>     >> different lengths)."/<BR>>     >>  Since when? I mean, assuming the duplex segment was somewhere<BR>>    close to<BR>>     >> being "tuned".<BR>>     >>  Terry Farrell</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>