<HTML><HEAD> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV> <DIV><FONT face="MS Sans Serif" size=2>The issue and the quantifying was referring to was how much backscale length is needed to insure optimum movement of the soundboard in any given section.  I am aware of the arguments about duplex tuning and have not found it to be a significant contributor to tone or sustain.  In fact, tuned duplexes on the tuning pin side of the speaking length I find to be a detriment and will confess to detuning them whenever possible.  I am aware of your claims of 300% improvement in sustain when the duplex is tuned.  I will admit to a total skepticism for this claim.  With respect to Steinway pianos, there are many changes that are routinely made when rebuilding, remanufacturing, however you wish to refer to it.  The recent thread referred to such things as the addition of cutoff bars, belly bracing, modifying the bass bridge cantilever to increase backscale length, detuning the front duplexes, rescaling, squaring the bridge notching in the low tenor and bass sections, crowing the ribs, etc., etc..  All of these "redesigns", will improve the overall performance of the piano and I don't consider it in any way a desecration of the original, just an improvement.  Technology and knowledge is always changing.  Unwillingness to adopt improvements is often a marketing misperception and an unwillingness to let go of what is perceived as a success.  I am not bound by such constraints.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="MS Sans Serif" size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="MS Sans Serif" size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="MS Sans Serif" size=2> <DIV>David Love</DIV> <DIV><A href="mailto:davidlovepianos@earthlink.net">davidlovepianos@earthlink</A></DIV></FONT></DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>---- Original Message ----- </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid"> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=Duplexdan@aol.com href="mailto:Duplexdan@aol.com"></A></DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To: </B><A title=pianotech@ptg.org href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A></DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> 5/9/2003 4:15:18 PM </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Rear Duplex Bars on Steinways: was Baldwin Accujust...</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF">David Love,<BR><BR>It seems i may have missed the correspondence initiating the discussion on the rear duplexes, but I am glad that I found the email in time to drop into the conversation because I believe that there is something missing from the interplay. And that something is a bit of respect for CFT. <BR><BR>When the duplex scale was originally incorporated in the Steinway design in 1876 at the Philadephia Convention it was accredited to be one of the most significant new features of scale design by Steinway. It should be noted that since that time, S & S has remained a benchmark piano with a consistent and reliable tone. dozens of manufacturers have utilized CFT's patent to develop their own versions of this characteristic. <BR><BR>I have spent many years and many hours tuning and teaching duplex tuning technology, and I consider it  beyond the bounds of responsible technical rationale to attempt to redesign the plate of a Steinway Piano and its duplex scale  instead of trying to tune the duplexes as Steinway intended. Anyone who would go to such lengths has obviously got a severe case of DUPLEXOPHOBIA. It is cureable, provided your priority is the tone of the piano.<BR><BR>Dan Franklin, RPT</FONT> </FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>