<!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 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; FONT: 10pt = verdana; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> Delwin D Fandrich wrote: </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">  <DIV dir=ltr>All pianos have both front and rear duplexes. The = question is how long they are, what the string deflection angle is (at the = front), and whether or not they are tuned.</DIV> <DIV dir=ltr> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr>Del</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> Isnt this a rather.... wide = definition of a duplex Del ? I mean when the get to the point of being 3-5 mm = long and muted at that it seems a bit of a stretch to call the thing a = duplex.... or what ? -- What would you prefer to call it? Duplex simply means 'consisting of two = parts.' Beyond that we really have to get more specific. If we are going = to go to the trouble of tuning the duplex surely it's not too difficult to = say so. And we have a perfectly good word we can use: aliquot, meaning, = "to divide something exactly." Or we can say the duplex is "an aliquot part" = of the speaking length meaning the duplex is divided into some fractional = part of the speaking length. Del</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> Why not call these lengths what they really are in our = context...in the most general sense they are simply non speaking lengths. Ok. They are = all duplex lengths that are non-speaking. At least the way I design and build = (rebuild too, for that) pianos, they are non-speaking. If they are tuned duplex = string segments -- i.e., aliquot string segments -- they are most often = speaking lengths to one degree or another.   In more specific sense they are front and back duplex lengths which = may or may not be at the same time an aliquot part.  Correct me if I am = wrong but doenst the aliquot part infer whole number fractional parts... = like 1/3, 1/4 etc... not  0.25643 or the like ??? Right. As I = said, "...we can say the duplex is 'an aliquot part' of the speaking length meaning the = duplex is divided into some fractional part of the speaking length.' = I.e., it is tuned to = some fractional part of the fundamental. The word = duplex as applied to the string segment between the V-bar/agraffe does not imply = that it is a specifically tuned string segment. Unless, of course, its length = is identical to the speaking length. I have for = years called these string segments duplex string segments regardless of their = length--it's how I was taught and it's how many others in my circle of acquaintances have = referred to them. It seems a good convention to follow. When they are = tuned it is easily stated and the word 'aliquot,' or and 'aliquot part,' is = quite useful. You are, of course, free to call them whatever = you'd like. Del  </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>