Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum "Fully Tempered Duplex Scale" Tech article coming March

BDB,
I hope you enjoy your suspicions. If you read my article I hope you noticed the prefatory paragraph Ed Sutton appended. He is a well known sceptic of "new" piano inventions.

I do not think tone quality, in a fundamental way, is taste. There is good taste and bad taste.

My theoretical foundation for tone is a concept I developed called "Musically Intelligible Sound", (MIS). It is rooted in combining linguistics, operatic vocal technique, the standard two terms form of defining the tone of an individual piano note, (I have my own preferred words for each part, )and my original contribution being; placing three categories of sound across the compass of the keyboard. MIS was to be the centerpiece of my second book titled; "Grand DeLight", subtitled; "The Natural Tongue of Piano Tone and Touch". I have 13 chapters roughed in but have not gone further due to other interests.

BDB my "proof" is the only one that matters to musicians!

As I said, recordings would be welcome. Ideally, it should be "before" and "after" recordings with everything else the same on the piano. That is, if the piano is restrung during the process, the piano needs to be restrung in the "before" recording.

Testimonials are rarely proof. I am reminded of the story of the pile of crutches left at a shrine, and the note left there by someone who understands this: "One wooden leg would be sufficient!"

Ok, I queried with the PTG and Ed Sutton, responded with, "it is being changed to members only?".

So, we leave it there and to the PTG

What are you talking about? Are you looking for some sort of conspiracy? If the Journal was available on line to non-members of the PTG, then it was an oversight related to running a klunky website that has now been corrected.

I am leaving all of this stuff alone as this is not my fight, but the PTG's.

I'm a bit confused. If it was incorrect for Jim to post that link, then that's on Jim. You seem to be implying something broader?

I will leave all of this stuff to the professionals.

I agree with Zeno-our PTG website is clunky!

My apologies to all who cannot access the article. If you send me your mailing addresses I will send a photo copy of the article to all who are interested-except BDB- it sounds like I might have to send him a whole piano!
Thanks Ed

Hello Ed,

yes I wish to read the doc, I have on the site but now it is not possible.

I suggest that you pass recordings of notes before and after.

Even with basic microphone that kind of analysis is not so difficult to provide in my opinion.

I dont understand why we dont seem more spectra analysis from the people providing piano wire, pitch locks, and other goodies that are supposed to clean or optimise a part of the tone.

SImply dont get why, even basic recording misses.

WHat is provided is recordings of pianos with 6-8mlikes and a lot of sound treatment, sometime, or tuners playing with the sustain pedal engaged.

However, I am all for reasearchs and discovering new things.

YEst the font duplexes are not providing a clean tone by themselves, I suppose they playu a role more in the dynamics (adbsorbing part of the impact hardness) than to enlight the spectra

SO you say that the L waves are passing thru the inner pârt of the wire ? this need to be examinated, as I understand the wire is deformed under the hammer impact, but this deformation is supposed to be stopped by the agrafe or the capo.

(while certainly there is something that passes from the wire to the tuning pin, at last with a hard blow the original wave is what allows to test pin setting or to create it, depending of the tuning method used. (it also allows to add a little tension in the front segment after having lowered it when tuning)

How can you detect the presence of Lmodes in the front segments ? with accelerometers , or with the method tou developped (where the presence is ascertain by its loss, if I understand well) ?

Please let us hear what it is about, whenever possible.

You, as a reasearcher, certainly have recorded samples as it is the case in all acoustical researches. Could you provide them please ?

All the best

Isaac OLEG

Isaac,

What equipment do you use to make the on-site demonstration recordings you've posted on the forum? I have found several of them demonstrate the point you were trying to make very well, while obviously not being a professional recording.

I'm thinking of 2 recordings in particular from, I think, the Unison thread:

1-tuning treble unisons with the sustain pedal engaged
2-also in the Unison thread, it was a pianist "testing" a CHAS tuning

In both of these the sound was not professional, but still the point and the sound made it through quite well, despite the manner of recording.

Jim Ialeggio

That proof would be quite an undertaking. To prove, for example, that the FTDS duplex design was better than a piano designed not to bleed energy across the capo, you'd have to take two identical pianos, prepare and voice them the same way, and verify by means of some measurements that their treble sections gave identical tones (to some agreed upon extent). Then, you'd have to modify one using the FTDS techniques and the other not to bleed energy across the capo. You would have to verify, by some objective tests, that the modifications to both pianos were competently designed and executed, i.e., they produced some objective standard of performance. Then, both pianos would have to be prepped and voiced to bring out their best tone--not just any best tone, but a best tone that was, in some aesthetic way, comparable (boy, would that be a task fraught with problems). Then, by means of listening and some additional objective tests, decide which one sounded better, or, in fact, if they just sounded somewhat different, but in a way that could not be classified as better or worse. The listening tests would have to be double blind to be of any worth.

Until such tests were done, I would have to say that your assertion about the superiority of FTDS design was somewhat anecdotal.

Yes, I believe this is true.



Well, the L mode is much like sound in air. Just as sound in air causes compression and rarefaction, and also produces movement in air molecules, the L mode produces longitudinal movement of the string--if it didn't how would the L-mode energy be coupled to parts of the piano that could vibrate and produce sound? The extent to which the L mode can go through the capo termination would depend on the details of the termination. You apparently have determined that using a particular plastic dampens L modes. Perhaps that plastic could be used at the string-bearing point of the capo and damp L modes there. If so, a piano could use this feature and also use a high enough string angle over the capo not to bleed T mode energy across the capo, and therefore may have the superior sustain of such a design.



If M&H BBs have tuned front duplexes one must assume that the design of the capo does not stop T-mode string energy from crossing the capo.



I believe that this statement is not true in general, though it might be true of some poorly designed monotone duplexes. Also, consider that any T-mode energy that bleeds across the capo is T-mode energy that is no longer in the string. It would be difficult to believe that T-mode energy in the string can make it past the capo into the tuned duplex section, and then make it through the capo again into the main portion of the string without substantial energy loss. Therefore, one would think that a piano designed not to bleed T-mode energy across the capo would have superior sustain, other things being equal. If I may indulge in an anecdotal statement, I have played a piano designed not be bleed energy across the capo, and this piano had neither a nasal tone, nor short sustain.



If, by a pivot termination you mean one in which the string effectively pivots at the capo due to T-mode vibrations, then you are indeed correct--a piano designed with a monotone duplex is, or at least, should be, designed to have a true, full termination at the capo, in which nothing crosses the capo. If fully successful, no L- or T-mode energy would cross such a capo.

ROY123,
The people who can evaluate whether my FTDS works are ones who have heard many pianos, and particularly the scales with prior art duplexes, and have heard the same scales with FTDS. They recognize the improvement. As some level the double blind sort of A to B test you are requiring looks good on paper, and if I were seeking tenure at University would be needed, but to provide practical service to musicians-"I don't need no stinking badges" (To quote the banditos from the movie Treasure of The Sierra Madre).

At some level all that matters is that an FTDS makes a piano function better as a musical instrument and provides a more stable regime for those elements. My thinking may seem different than many of the tropes that have become standard about pianos, but I think it is simpler, and based on known physics. What I have uncovered is that inaudible L-modes can produce audible beats.

My claims involve capo bar elements that stiffen and damp L-mode. I have not made an instrument with all of the elements in place in one piano.

The importance of pivot to the very short treble strings cannot be overstated. The T-mode must be able to flex the portion of string between the V-bar and the duplex rest. Even when you get down to the agraffe section, placing the agraffe side of the string rest felts 10mm or so behind them and using the densest felt produces an audible difference. As does chamfering the agraffe string holes so as to allow the fullest pivot string motion. I have verified all of this with A to B comparisons.

My apologies to all who expect me to set up a recording studio and then post the clips here. I would rather spend the time making another instrument.

I do have a long professional track record of successful innovation which Mr. Sutton aknowledged in his prefatory paragraph. I know that is saying "Trust me" but that is where I am at.

I have heard several pianos which have been changed from a duplex to a monotone and they all had weaker, thinner treble tone.

I would agree. Double-blind tests to disprove the null hypothesis are entirely appropriate for drugs and medical procedures where people's lives are at stake. However, this is not by any means the only way to "know" something. In fact, only a microscopic percentage of all we know comes to us that way. To suggest we won't reliably know something about Ed's development until we exhaust what might well be the entire piano industry's R&D budget for a few years just isn't real.

Certainly it's not appropriate to dismiss or muzzle small innovators when their presentation is well-reasoned and reflects some sort of practical interaction with the real world through direct observation of phenomena. This is NOT to say that there shouldn't be questions and critiques as time goes along. Those are entirely appropriate. But to dismiss something or someone just because they don't have a corporate research budget won't be helpful to consideration of innovation in our morbidly conservative industry.

Could you clarify the language here. S&S has a "ski slope" of felt in the tenor agraffe section which behaves as a mushy, high friction, kind'a counter-bearing (a bit of a pain to the tuner sometimes). Are you saying placing dense felt on the non-speaking side of the agraffe, in addition to the ski slope?

Also if this is what you are describing, how does it assist the pivot, being so close to the agraffe. Or, are you differentiating between pivot and L mode damping in the treble sections and L mode damping only in the tenor agraffe sections.

A pic would be helpful if you could manage it.


Jim Ialeggio

I've been following this thread with great interest, as this sounds like a big innovation. I'm on board with the physics and the rationale, but I don't have rebuilding or designing experience, I can only relate to what I have encountered wtih existing duplex scaling. Hence, I'm probably a bit more easily convinced than others on this forum!

I just wanted to jump in here because I believe it is not unreasonable for people to want to hear samples of this technology. Nobody is asking you to set up a recording studio - in fact Isaac is bemoaning the lack of really simple recordings that just get the message across - if your technology makes the kind of difference to the sound that you seem to be claiming, then there's no requirement for a professional recording to bring it out - simply any recording using an external microphone, of an untreated piano and a piano with the FTDS. Even a very simple recording of an ascending major scale in the treble of your FTDS-equipped B would be illuminating, I'm sure - do it with your phone, even.

I'm not asking for scientific comparison. I'm just curious what it sounds like, as I'm sure a great number of other people here are!

Nice post, Phil, thanks.

Hi Ed,

Plus one.

Yes, nice post Mr. Dickson.

Agreed, this whole thread is too secretive. It's all words and no action. I gather Ed is trying to somewhat protect this idea, but it's coming across as a bit cagey. No pictures, no sound, just concepts. How exactly are people supposed to evaluate this technology?

I can understand that until the patent is granted the details should not be gone into. I have also been willing to give the benefit of the doubt for inaccurate use of scientific claims. But I would like to hear a demonstration. There have been too many claims of miracle discoveries around here that, when we actually get to hear them, are not that impressive. I, for one, am not about to recommend that anyone buy a self-tuning piano, or a granite bridge, after hearing the samples.

Thanks Keith for a well said post!

Olek and A.C.; PM your addresses and I will send article to you.

Jim; Reduce the width of the paperboard string rest by about 7mm at note 51 and taper that off about 15 notes below. Bond the densest woven felt appropriate to the paperboard and place it about 10mm behind agraffe 51. Make overall thickness enough to make a solid, definite point of contact at the agraffe edge of the ski-slope string rest.

Phi D; Call me at 01-425-299-3431 on march 19th between 9:00AM and 6PM US west coast time and I will play the treble over the phone for you. That is the first day I will have the shop to myself again since a bunch of music teachers are using my showroom for classes for the next few days.

ANDO; I think you must realize that musical instruments must be directly experienced to have a truly meaningful experience. One of these days I will get my web-site up and it will have recordings of each piano I have available. As of now other activities take precedence.

BDB; Again I can't send you an FTDS piano-but I have and do demonstrate them to all who desire to come by my shop. Or when I am invited to present at a PTG or close facsimile thereof group-I will bring a piano if it is at all possible. I am with you on the self-tuning granite piano, (did I just say that or is someone stoned out of their mind?). FTDS is the real deal my friends and I am very proud of it. I also will say that there are many many wonderful pianos without it-but it does make it easier to make a beautiful treble. Warm with power. Plus it blends across the compass seamlessly.