Befuddlement??? -Reply

[Delwin D Fandrich]

Stephen Birkett wrote:


> The primary reason that hide glue is acoustically
> superior to any other glue is precisely this brittleness property that you
> describe (notwithstanding all the myriad practical advantages too). Other
> glues introduce an undesirable springiness and thus alter the natural
> frequencies that the hammerhead/shank can vibrate in. 

Has anyone (besides me) actually tested the acoustic Titebond II (or any
of its similar commercial cousins such as Multibond 200 or Borden’s
product MPA II)? I keep hearing this argument, but have been unable to
prove—or have proven to me—the claimed acoustical superiority that is
claimed for hide glue in any practical, properly fitted glue joint. 

I realize that hide glue is “brittle,” but so is Titebond II. Go ahead,
try it. These are not your fathers aliphatic resins. Its propensity to
“creep” is greatly exaggerated. Wood itself, especially spruce, has as
much creep as a thin glue line of Titebond II. As far as the “resonant
frequency” of either is concerned; surely this has been shown to be of
no practical consequence in any real piano assembly or structure for
some time now. Besides if the joint is fit properly, the brittleness of
the glue is not going to be relevant in any case unless you use
something like Elmer’s white glue.

I also realize that hide glue joints can be taken apart readily, but so
can Titebond II joints. It’s a thermoplastic, just heat it a bit. 

Now, bear in mind that we use a lot of animal hide glue. I like it for
many applications. I also am just old fashioned enough to still like
working with it. But, please, let’s not romanticize it beyond its
capabilities or its usefulness.

Sorry if this brands me as a heretic, but I used to preach the same
gospel. Until I was challenged to prove what I was saying and I couldn’t
make it stand up under standard materials testing and evaluation
techniques.

—ddf