alternatives for soundboards

[Delwin D Fandrich]

André,

Of course I have some comments . . . .

--------------------------------------------------------

Antares wrote:

> List,
>
> Somehow, I am convinced that the well known good sound of spruce is
> irreplaceble.  I have been a tech for quite a long time, and I have seen many
> pianos with many different designs and materiels.  Also, I have played cello
> and bass for a long time, instruments with "the real stuff" and built with
> plywood.  If we listen carefully to pianos with a plywood soundboard and
> compare them with a "spruce piano", I think we must come to the conclusion
> that the latter sounds best. The same for violins, celli, and basses.

I'll cheerfully avoid the comparison between stringed instruments such as the
violin, cello, bass, etc., and the piano.  The principles of operation are so
different that no reasonable comparison can be made.  However...

Having designed laminated soundboards and built pianos using them that perform
equally as well as -- indeed, in some cases better than -- their counterparts
using 'solid' spruce boards, I have to take exception to this belief.

Just as not all 'solid' spruce soundboards are equal, neither are all laminated
soundboards.  Notice that I make a distinction between 'plywood' soundboards and
'laminated' soundboards.  In the early days of laminated soundboards, the
material was indeed simply 'plywood.'  No thought was given to the varying
densities of the material or to the very different -- and controllable --
stiffness parameters of the material.  One factory using basically a
compression-crown process intermingled both solid spruce boards and laminated
boards on the same assembly line, using the same ribs and rib presses, and
couldn't figure out why the pianos with the laminated boards didn't have any
crown.  Of course these pianos sounded bad.  As have most other pianos using ill
conceived laminated soundboards.  If the goal is simply to save money, and the
design time is not invested to make the most of the material, you are right.
They will not sound good.

However, if care is taken during the design process to properly select the right
materials and then to manipulate and utilize the beneficial characteristics of
the laminating process, the results are outstanding.

I remain convinced that the best sounding pianos have yet to be built and that
many of them will be built with laminated soundboards.



> I think that it will not be possible to find a substitute for the wonderful
> spruce, but I do think that it will be worth the effort to find something
> "else", just for the sake of our dying woods.
>
> In any case, I am also convinced that the answer is not "plastic". I think the
> answer lies in "living" materiels, not dead ones.

Even if spruce of musical instrument grade were not becoming increasingly
difficult to find, I would still be interested in alternate materials.  Building
good, consistent soundboards out of spruce -- any wood, for that matter -- is
difficult and expensive.  If alternate materials and/or processes can be found
and used, both performance and consistency can be improved at a lower cost.
Basically, wood is an engineering material.  It has measurable and fairly well
understood physical properties.  It has moderately predictable stiffness, mass,
internal resistance, etc.  It is possible to use a variety of synthetic
materials to duplicate -- possibly even improve on -- these characteristics.
Laminated wood panels are just one possibility.  Synthetics and composites are
another.  In the process it should be possible to design soundboards in which
the precise acoustic characteristics can be controlled and predicted with much
greater precision than is possible with wood.

Once the tree is cut, by the way, wood is no longer 'living.'  It is dead.  It
becomes simply a fiber-reinforced plastic with the unfortunate characteristic of
being highly effected by even moderate variations in humidity.



> The piano person in Holland who was responsible for the "chrystal soundboard"
> was not able to convince the real pianists, and I am sure he never will.. with
> his plastic soundboard.  Somebody with a developed taste knows how to
> distinguish (how do you spell that nasty word?) between fake and real.

Of course a 'crystal soundboard' is going to sound different than a wood
soundboard.  He should have known better.  Perhaps he did.  Was he actually
trying to market the boards as a direct substitute for wood?  Or was it intended
to be a completely different instrument.


> Another thought :
>
> If you have the chance to work on a REALLY magnificent Steinway (or other
> wonderful) grand, isn't that convincing enough? Isn't the thought of plastic
> or plywood a nice joke then?

I have.  And I still maintain that in the end, laminated soundboards are going
to be proven to be inherently superior.


> Nevertheless, I am open to new ideas, but somehow it seemed necessary for me
> to put my thoughts down in these words.
>
> André

André, I always appreciate reading your thoughts on whatever subject.  Even if I
do disagree with them from time to time...

Regards,

Del