>André, > >Of course I have some comments . . . . > >-------------------------------------------------------- Of course Del, most welcome! >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... OK..I listen >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 would very much like to hear one of your laminated products, maybe some time in the future you will allow me to come and visit you? >> 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. Just my feeling, and again.. I am open to other inventions and improvements, but I do not believe in dead materiels being able to compete with our magnificent Steinway soundboard. At the same time I would like to say that although I am not a "tree hugger", I wish more people would have some respect for our last forests, In Europe there are no real forests anymore..point..period...exit. >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. As far as I know, he wanted to invent a substitute for wooden soundboards. So he had a factory make a "crystal" soundboard with a crown and no ribs. The sound was very poor.... And I still maintain that in the end, laminated soundboards are going >to be proven to be inherently superior. I am glad! that would be great, and I am waiting..... >André, I always appreciate reading your thoughts on whatever subject. Even if I >do disagree with them from time to time... That is the nice thing about a forum like this...we can discuss these matters and have respect for each others way of thinking. Friendly greetings from, Antares
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC