<HTML>In a message dated 9/3/2003 5= :58:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Erwinspiano writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT= : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Subj: Re: front or back Date: 9/3/2003 5:58:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: <A HREF="mailto:Erwinspiano">Erwinspiano</A> To: <A HREF="mailto:caut@ptg.org">caut@ptg.org</A> In a message dated 9/3= /2003 3:58:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sec@overspianos.com.au writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT= : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">While we see the felt arranged both ways, quieter damping w= ill be achieved when the plain felt is at the back. Ron O. -- </BLOCKQUOTE>       Good answer Ron, I always wondered about that= . We generally use this  Stwy configuration of damper felt in other gra= nds and it works well. I don't think I've ever heard an explaination of why = in vintage stwys the bass damper felt is arranged so that the longer piece i= s in front and a quite small piece in the back. I'm going to guess that they= were trying to avoid a nodal point which could hum  harmonically. I fr= equently cut the basss felts in four pieces in the mono chords and first 2 b= ichords then I go to two pieces ,the front one being longer than the rear. T= his arrangement give good damping except on some S&S A 2s  which I = think tmight have the dampers  sitting on nodal point. I've had some re= al trouble with damping in some of these. Perhaps this is why they were disc= ontinued in favor of the A -3.     Dale</BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>