Negative crown

[Ron Nossaman]

At 04:06 PM 12/29/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Ron,
>Very well put.  I think we are talking the same language.  The only
>difference I have is my dislike for the word "impedance".  In my line of
>work, the only people that talk of impedance is them electrical guys (you
>know, the ones that need scopes to see what they are doing).  I am much more
>comfortable talking about mode shapes, resonant frequencies, dynamic
>coupling and the like and leave the impedance to the EE's.  
>
>The reason I replied to your thread in the first place is reflecting on
>previous threads about Killer Octaves.  Seems like there should be someone
>that optimized the impedance so that the Killer Octaves died.  Maybe we
>haven't figured out the best way to kill it yet...  (or more likely, another
>manufacturing problem or reliability issue comes up again).
>
>Anyway,  thanks for the reply.  And YES, we are having fun!
>doug


The fun has just begun, Doug. With a basic understanding of how  mechanical
impedance works, some of the cause and effect relationships between
soundboard assembly design, and resulting sound generation start to click.
It's all physics, and no chickens need die for the magic to happen. You
don't even have to paint yourself up and wear all those itchy feathered hats
and knee bands, though I wouldn't discourage it if you happen to like the
effect. I'd draw the line at tatoos, however. The truth is that the 'killer
octave' has died. Del effectively killed it with the relentless application
of science, logic, and hard headed relentlessness over a period of years of
R&D done at his own expense, and with his own personal brain cells. The rest
of the world just isn't listening to what he has to say. I did. About a year
ago, based on what Del was saying was possible (it's all his fault), I
launched into a sort of frenzy of speculative prognostication and
experimentation, to the degree that I was able, and literally fell into some
of the basic principles of soundboard design. About a three weeks ago, I
strung my pilot project and have been tinkering with it from time to time
since. People, to whom it may concern, this stuff is real. It works. A six
foot (no name) piano really can sound like a decent seven footer. It really
is possible to redesign and rebuild a piano so you can't find the bass/tenor
break by sound alone. It is possible to have an octave 5-6 that has a good
dynamic range and long sustain time, and a high treble that rings instead of
going 'dink'. When I get the action rebuilt and replace those old flat-nosed
hammers with something more functional, I expect to see a significant
improvement, and I'm a practicing cynic. This is real, repeat, REAL, and the
only thing preventing the escalation of the piano design revolution (it's
there, you just haven't heard it yet) is the incapacity of the industry to
recognize a good thing when it shows up on their doorstep with references.
Consider notice served. If there is intelligence anywhere in this industry,
musical things are about to happen. Coming soon, to a store near you.

Wait for it, 
 Ron