[CAUT] Soundboard weighting

[G Cousins]

David,

Baldwin did some production on their model 7000 with ading (weighted) mass to the board.

Augmented the upper registers very efficiently.  Yet another innovative design from the original Baldwin folk.

Gerry 
 
> From: davidlovepianos at comcast.net
> To: caut at ptg.org
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:01:10 -0700
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Soundboard weighting
> 
> Mass loading seems most necessary where treble cutoffs are employed
> especially behind the treble bridge (the so-called "fish") where the cutoff
> changes the balance between stiffness and mass (increasing the stiffness
> while reducing the mass). The added mass in the form of weights recaptures
> that balance and prevents that jangly sound that can come from that
> imbalance. Mass loading is not needed lower down in the scale and, in fact,
> the bass section seems to benefit from reduced mass which, I believe, is why
> you often see holes drilled out of the bass bridge. 
> 
> BTW I've changed the subject line from "sousdboard weighting" to soundboard
> weighting as I couldn't help but feel like we were talking about a
> soundboard that had had one too many. Appropriate as it might be in this
> case. 
> 
> David Love
> www.davidlovepianos.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Anderson
> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 8:09 PM
> To: caut at ptg.org
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Sousdboard weighting
> 
> Alan,
> Seems to me that Overs utilized up to 90 oz weights. Recommendations 
> were to have a variety precut and temp them into the bottom of the 
> bridge to judge effect.
> Been meaning to try that too, along with a few other interesting things.
> 
> Andrew Anderson
> 
> On Apr 27, 2009, at 7:16 PM, Alan McCoy wrote:
> 
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > For anyone who is doing soundboard weighting I'd like to know what 
> > you have
> > found effective. Of course if you also state what kind of board 
> > system, it
> > would provide the necessary context. And, while I'm asking, what did 
> > you
> > achieve, or what problem were you trying to solve (ex. I wanted to 
> > get rid
> > of the thunky sound, or wanted more fundamental, etc.).
> >
> > 1. What is the heaviest amount of mass that you have added in any one
> > location to effectively achieve what you wanted? For what type of 
> > board
> > system?
> >
> > 2. What is the least amount of mass that you have added in any one 
> > location
> > to effectively achieve what you wanted? For what type of board system?
> >
> > 3. Have you noticed a pattern to the mass loading? That is, more 
> > mass is
> > necessary in one are of the board and less mass in a different area.
> >
> > Thanks for any responses.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > -- Alan McCoy, RPT
> > Eastern Washington University
> > amccoy at ewu.edu
> > 509-359-4627
> > 509-999-9512
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090428/3939aa38/attachment.html>