<html> <body> At 06:58 AM 7/5/2004, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">And they are? (I can think of a couple as well, but these reasons don't constitute good design)</blockquote> You have made my point perfectly.  This is exactly what is wrong with being so critical of other designs - agreeing with what is "good."   Piano design is a matter of tradeoffs, and you know perfectly well that when you improve one aspect you almost always detract from another.  Sometimes the better design adds too much cost to fit a manufacturer's target.  Other times the benefit to the tuner is outweighed in the designers mind by the drawback to the tonal balance.  Or perhaps fixing the design in one area causes 3 other difficulties to the design in areas which would require a major change in the piano layout that is unacceptable.  In the case of the straight vs. dogleg tenor bridge, it would be pointless to debate the relative merits of the individual points, because you would simply continue to maintain that the logarithmic tenor bridge is superior because those aspects of the design which are important to you make is so.  There can be no resolution to such a discussion. To assume that a design department does something for no good reason is a very arrogant position, and this type of criticism is inappropriate.  Saying you can't understand why they do something a particular way is fair, and discussing the merits of one design or another is perfectly reasonable and beneficial to this list.  When the discussion starts from a standpoint of fairness and openmindedness, rather than from your position of trying to make the alternate opinion look stupid, then actual debate of the merits of one design or another can take place.  Someone who presents themselves as a piano maker worthy of respect really should consider using the more open minded approach. >My views have not come about as some 'hair brained' idea dreamed up last week. I have studied and reflected upon a range of different instruments >over a period of more than fifteen years, gradually building up a personal conviction, as to the merit of this scaling approach. Why do you take a defensive position when I did not disagree with your point?  Who called this idea yours, or  'hair brained' ?  I said it is the design you prefer, not your invention. >The second point of note, that all F21 notes are 183 cm, is simply depressing. So you see, the boring state of affairs that you believe we should >guard against is already with us. Yet listen to how completely different these pianos sound!  I assure you, each piano designer had complete freedom to change the length of F21, and to move the break to a new location - but each chose the same length for a reason.  I don't claim any magical figure - only that, for whatever reason, it fit into the designs well.  All three scales differ in other areas - so why pick on the ends of the long bridges and say they copied Steinway?  Only because it serves your argument. >And I certainly didn't put forward the idea with any delusion that it might gain your respect. I already stated that I have respect for what you are doing.  You may not be looking for respect from me personally, but if you examine your motives honestly, you are most definitely posting to this list frequently in the aim of gaining respect and exposure for your pianos.  When you don't bash others, I think you generally succeed. >Frankly, when I reflect on the closed attitude which so often pervades this industry . . . This phrase illustrates the problem very well.  I have not found the Kawai engineers to be close minded to my suggestions.  But I agree that they are very closed minded to people with an attitude.  So this is like a self fulfilling prophesy; as long as you suggest changes in a critical manner, it is human nature that most people do not want to listen, so they become closed minded to you. Do you recall when I (privately) expressed to you my opinions about your action design?  You seemed to immediately close off and stop wanting to discuss the details of my impressions, and thereafter assumed that I am somehow against you.  In other words, your attitude towards me reflected an extremely closed attitude - just what you accuse other manufacturers of. Your brought up the bridge caps - the relative merits of bridge cap grain orientation is a perfect example of the validity of differing opinions.  I am not at all convinced by your arguments that quarter sawn bridge caps are unconditionally superior.  Flat sawn caps give better pitch stability in climates with a wide humidity range, and tend to keep the tone quality more consistent during very dry conditions.   The hardness and grain structure of the maple chosen is more critical  when using flat sawn bridge caps, but if the wood is chosen well it will function flawlessly for years, and will gain the benefits I mentioned.  With quarter sawn, the bridge pins holes tend to stay tighter over time, but this also varies with wood quality and pin size and angle. So which approach is superior?  Depends on what aspects of the design you prefer - in your case (along with others), quarter sawn caps are preferred and work better for you.  In others, flat sawn is preferred. Is it valid to publicly berate a manufacturer for preferring one design over another?  You might think so, but I respectfully disagree. Don Mannino </body> </html>