I suppose this is a type of a brag but I thought an announcement here would help inform the field.

I have a Patent applications pending titled "Fully Tempered Duplex Scale", (FTDS). If you attended my class at the 2012 PTG Nat'l convention you already know about it. I exhibited a Steinway B and Baldwin R that have been modified to display some of the technology my invention covers.

The March issue of "The Piano Technicians Journal" features an article by me describing what I have done in the realm of duplex scaling to rise to the level of invention. Of course I still have to complete the Patent examination process.

A FTDS can play a very significant role in producing an even, dynamic, sustained treble tone that blends well with the middle of the compass. I have done several pianos now with this feature and the response of musicians is very positive. I believe my FTDS shows that I have solved the vast majority of duplex/capo noise issues.

I am seeking to license FTDS to important parts of the piano industry. If you would like to play and hear exemplar FTDS pianos, I am in the Seattle area.

I hope my fellow technicians will read my article at least!

Wow, I'm floored.
Someone who actually takes duplexing seriously. (As opposed to seriously scorning it.)
I guess its time to get that associate membership.

I haven't really bothered with dealing with duplex scales on older models when I tune. Recently I did some checks on a Hailun 178 and was quite surprised how the duplex 5ths just fell into place with standard tuning methods. Just go the usual amount sharp to render the back string and drop back to pitch and it remarkably falls into place by design.

Hi Ed,

Thanks for informing on PW.

You wrote: ..."I have a Patent applications pending titled "Fully Tempered Duplex Scale", (FTDS)."...

This sounds interesting. What do you mean when you say "fully tempered"?

..."If you attended my class at the 2012 PTG Nat'l convention you already know about it."...

Unfortunately I was not there.

..."I exhibited a Steinway B and Baldwin R that have been modified to display some of the technology my invention covers."...

How were those pianos "modified"?

..."The March issue of "The Piano Technicians Journal" features an article by me describing what I have done in the realm of duplex scaling to rise to the level of invention."...

Is it possible to know what you have done, here in PW?

..."Of course I still have to complete the Patent examination process."...

Leave Patent aside, are you able to supply more information?

..."A FTDS can play a very significant role in producing an even, dynamic, sustained treble tone that blends well with the middle of the compass."...

I share your believe. About the "middle of the compass", may I ask you what would your reference be? In other words, how would you tune the middle compass? Do you tune "aurally"?

..."I have done several pianos now with this feature and the response of musicians is very positive."...

Is there any recording, perhaps a comparison of the kind.. "before and.. after"?

...I believe my FTDS shows that I have solved the vast majority of duplex/capo noise issues."...

Would you be able to expand on "duplex/capo noise issues"?

..."I am seeking to license FTDS to important parts of the piano industry. If you would like to play and hear exemplar FTDS pianos, I am in the Seattle area."...

I cannot visit you (right now), but I would love to be able to appreciate your invention, compared to a usual duplex.

..."I hope my fellow technicians will read my article at least!"

I too would like to read your article, for sure! For the time being, all the best for your project,

Regards, a.c.
.

Craig Hair;
There have been pianos in the Seattle are where the duplex was removed-so for me-recognizing the lack of tone was a no brainer. Glad you are in the "club" with me!

Emmery;
I think you may be referring to what I call the hitching length and others call the rear duplex. The article covers the front duplex, although the patent involves aspects of the hitching lengths behavior also.

A.C.;
If I posted the article here, I would be disrespecting the PTGJ Editor and Publisher. I am seeking to have a version of the article placed in Europiano and so far no rejection. You can subscribe to the PTGJ or order one copy of the March issue from PTG.org

Perhaps you could summarize what the advantages are.

And perhaps reply on other general items:

Please note; when I use the term "duplex" I mean the string length between the capo bar and the string rest nearest the tuning pin.

BDB,
The advantages that the "Fully Tempered Duplex Scale" has is that it solves the following problems:

FTDS eliminates the unnatural "whistles" and "chiming" sounds that sometimes accompany some notes of the typical duplex scale. Creates are more dynamic, full, (I like this descriptive term, Steinway used it a lot) sustained treble tone. Provides for a more complete utilization of the "pivot termination" conditions that reduces string fatigue. Perfectly blends the tone of the duplex portion of scale with the agraffe section. Reduces hammer impact noise and it's transmission into the plate. Creates a more smother rendering of the string over the string rests when tuning. (There are other advantages but I want to be brief).

A.C.,
My term "Fully Tempered" used in conjunction with the term "Dulpex Scale" is derived from the way the T-modes and L-modes of the struck string, duplex length, and hitching length are established between themselves and their place in the compass. These relationships are "balanced" in a way somewhat similar the how we balance beat rates amongst the musical intervals when we tune.

I am sorry I cannot "scoop" the PTGJ so you will have to wait a bit for further details. Thank you for your interest and I hope to continue this conversation in the future.

If you want to read my article it is now available online at;
PTG.org
click on "view the PTG Journal"
click on "Journal PDF"
click on "March 2013"
I look forward to your comments.
Thanks Ed

Couldn't you just post a direct link?

PTG members only, I imagine, as login needed.

Ando; No I don't know how to post direct links.
Withindale; PTG Journal online as PDF is available to all. If you repost you must attribute for copyright.

Could someone elaborate on why the agraffe set up could not just be continued into the treble section? What was it about that section of the instrument that necessitated the creation of the capo bar, which seems to me like a much less effective form of string termination?

88 agraffes are possible - Bechstein is noted for doing that.

The presence of the capo bar allows front duplex scaling, which most manufacturers incorporate into their designs.

Seems a lot of the issues of false beats, buzzing and improper string alignment could be eliminated, or greatly reduced, by just employing agraffes across the entire scale. In those Bechsteins that have already employed this approach, has anyone shown them to have less in the way of tonal color and complexity? Why is the rear duplex not sufficient to attain the desired effect?

Play a Bechstein and hear for yourself what full agraffes sound like. It's a different experience.

It is quite possible to have capo sections with front duplex scaling and no false beats and perfect hammer/string alignment. Bosendorfer, Forster, Bluthner, and Steingraeber come to mind. I'm always amazed at how clean they are - they rarely have false beats, and if they do they can almost always be corrected.

Yes, but the question persists, why can't the same effect be accomplished with just the rear duplex? Also, why couldn't one create a front duplex system that worked with agraffes? Examining this photo:

http://www.precisionpianoservices.com/images/steinwaypianoduplex4-lg.jpg

one could easily see where the "V" bar could be eliminated, the plate could be extended distally and a set of agraffes could be drilled and inserted at the exact point where the string currently makes contact with the "V" bar. You could leave the duplex bars in place, while maintaining the same termination points, so as not to upset the scaling of the piano, and eliminate all the "typical" issues associated with the capo bar in the piano brands that did not make Mr. Carney's rather elite list.

ALso, in the high treble, having the hammers striking at the good location is not easy if there are agrafes, compromises are used (overblow) if not the hammer will touch the plate.

Strings lenght is more precise with agrafes, in the case of Bechsteins, string lenght differences within unisons could be similar from note to note. the advantage is only there, and there are more inconvenience, as less direct tone transmission within plate, so no "active plate" choice (and no front duplexes of course then)

The plate in the high treble is mostly "coloring" the impact tone.

I would sat that front duplex scaling can be done either with or without replacing the duplex with agraffes.

A capo has a different attack, one many seem to prefer.

A clean sound quires very good terminations. It does not take an agraffe to have that.

Additionally, drilling for agraffes high in the treble is tricky so close to the edge of the casting. Those agraffes are tilted toward the speaking length partly for hammer clearance and partly to make sure the agraffe threaded hole is well supported.

A Capo does save manufacturing time and the difference of tone is only subjective. They both are good.

Bechsteins with 88 agraffes have bad false beats when the string path between the speaking length and the tuning pin through the agraffe is not straight.

The first duplex arrangement I know of was Steinway "Monitor" grands which had 85 agraffes.

My Fully Tempered Duplex Scale, (FTDS), in it's most beneficial employment would have special agraffes in the capo. I have yet to do that version.

As Olek also points out, I will add though that note 88 strike point is usually just under 3mm from the termination point. With 88 agraffes there is no room to get that close without gluing the top hammers on longer and at a rake to tip them back towards the ideal strike point.

Duplex scales of the prior art have noises and create uneven tone where the typical capo bar scale switches to agraffes and the top treble is weak and often ugly, sometime awful ugly! My FTDS solves those problems.

Ed, when over centering shanks, are not the angle of the shanks to hammer's center line obtuse and the hammers are bored slightly short ..?

I might disagree here, We pay careful attention to termination, belly work and voicing.

I believe we have a fairly seamless transition from agraffe to capo ....

Ed,
On the 2 I have re-hammered, I lengthened bore slightly and swept a rake into the bore on the top 10 or so hammers-so as to avoid over-centering there-because any hammer wear will shift strike point shallower more rapidly.

Larry,
I am sure your work is fine. But I have proven my FTDS makes a treble better. I am not proposing that without it your trebles will all be dead-but it does make an even, clean, singing, more easily tuned, treble compass possible. All prior art duplex scales can not be voiced as evenly nor as powerfully as an FTDS scale. You will have to hear it to understand.
Ed Sutton has been quite skeptical of Techs who think they have invented something new, at the 2012 convention I invited him to hear two of my pianos and after 15 seconds of playing and looking the first words out of his mouth were "now THAT is different".

The full complement of elements I am describing have yet to be done all in one piano. I have filed for 44 claims, of course I will probably not get them all, I may not get any if the patent office just throws up their arms and says that there is too much prior art. I may have to take a piano to the Patent office because hearing is believing.

Ed,

I have read Jim Ellis's work, plodded through Conklin's work, studied Theodores 1872 patent on Duplex's, have a copy of Helmholtz third edition, Transcription by Ellis and am reading through that attempting to understand his potential influence on Theodore ..... what defines yours as different?

Well that is how it was on older Bechstein, with a larger rake angle sometime, but only to allow the strike near the string termination enough.

(over center (or overblow) was also used just to adapt to the large plate deformation noticed on some pianos at older times. I noticed one up to 6mm differnce between center and the extremes, and the original hammers had then that overblow and 94 ° rake angle- very bad for the core of the knuckles in the end, due to the lateral pressure on them they bend)

The larger rake angle is not an obligation, as there is generally a large angle coming from the bridge (may be less on Bechsteins in the end but 3° are not uncommon on Steinways)

The shape of those old hammers was so thin they often twist in time, unfortunately. it is always a problem when changing them.
Hopefully a few mm more on the shank is not that a problem in the high treble.(but the front side have often to be filed a lot for the last high treble notes)

Overblow (with 1° angle minimum) is considered as a security to allow more open FFF nuances, via probably more shank flexing.

Hello Ed,

This is great news but I wonder if you are not mistaken?

When did this take place?

I was under the impression that only members of the PTG and paying subscribers were allowed to view the journal.

Why would some have to pay for it and others not?

Larry,
There are several problems capo bars with duplex scales have and I am sure you have heard them all.
The problems are:
Snare drum, sizzle like sound that is heard at the fundamental frequency.
Pulsing, chiming sound that pulses with the fundamental but includes pulsing at higher partials.

The snare sizzle can be from either and/or; a too rounded V bar or a duplex length that is too close to a harmonic ratio with the speaking length.

The chiming sound is from the beats that arise between L-modes due to the divergent speaking lengths of the unison strings both at the V bar and at the duplex rest.

The pulsing, chiming sound is L-mode beats coming in and out of strong coupling with T-mode- again because of divergent speaking lengths plus duplex lengths too long for this place in the compass.

I do not know how to verify these descriptions with measurement. I do not see how the L-modes could be measured because the strings are so close together that there is no room for discrete magneto pickups. But I think my hypotheses is proven by the design it inspired. There are simply no other vibratory mode mechanisms to use to describe the origins of the sounds. Ellis's work proves L and T-mode beating/coupling.

Let take the venerable Stein B as an example;
C52 is the first capo/duplex note. On all the stock B's I have ever heard the tone of this note compared to B51 has an extra metallic shimmer to it that limits how full it can be voiced. Note 51 often has false sounds and duller tone due to poor string spacing and too soft string rest felt. Note 52 has a too long duplex and note 51 can have a too soft string rest which create a tonal scale break that most people probably just take as a fact of life that nothing can be done about.

You ask me what is different from Ellis and Conklin; they studied L-modes in the lower half of the compass.
Different from Helmholtz; I don't remember him having much to say about L-modes beyond the fact that they occur.
Different from Steinway; They got the front duplex ratios wrong in the patent, the hitching lengths (rear duplex) are better left closer to the fundamental, L-modes can not travel through the string over the bridge, I place the non-harmonic duplex ratios in the compass in such a way so as to maximize pivot termination (the pivot termination principle Steinway got right), at the highest point in the compass and blend the pivot effect into the reduced pivot conditions where the agraffe section begins. I eliminate, (at least in all the ones I have done so far) pulsing, chiming L-mode interactions by using a duplex string rest that essentially damps L-mode but not T-mode and that is very slippery to the string.

I also have claims regarding capo bar shape, capo bar mounting or stiffening methods, capo bar vibration control elements, agraffe mounting methods, hitching length proportions across the compass, and string contact elements at the bridge.

Does this help clear it up some? I do hope all who are interested will read my article carefully so I do not have to rewrite it a 100 times here. But I do appreciate the attention!