> On Sep 15, 2015, at 9:25 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 
> 
> I really do not think that wise at all.  Freeing the soundboard in that area is far more important than compressing it with extra strings, I'm sure you will agree with me there.    

Mike,

We are in absolute agreement.  As I said, I think we may safely ignore the matter.

The Hubbard double kits are an interesting experiment.  From their first version until about 1990 they were designed to be FF-g’’’.  When I get one back for repairs and I can persuade the owner to revise the instrument to f'' for transposing, those g’’’ strings become redundant (the f#’’’ strings become f at 440).  Aside from the relaxed pitch, which does absolute wonders for the sound, nothing changes.  What does disappear is the sometimes disappointing plink of the bridge end.  The timbre of the 8’s that remain is, as before, more coherent.  OK, so what?  My observation was that, done right (i.e., providing more soundboard to accommodate the extra bridge - which does not necessarily need to be burdened with strings) the bridge end effect could be ameliorated.  But where does that leave us?  It leaves us having adapted a clearly successful and satisfactory classical design to satisfy our current concerns.  Where’s the HIP in that?

Best,

Hendrik 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Note:  opinions  expressed on HPSCHD-L are those of the  individual con-
tributors and not necessarily  those of the list owners  nor of the Uni-
versity of Iowa.  For a brief  summary of list  commands, send mail to
[log in to unmask]  saying  HELP .
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::