Hi Del, since when has a soundboard been an amplifier ? Tony Caught ----- Original Message ----- From: Delwin D Fandrich <pianobuilders@olynet.com> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 12:59 AM Subject: Re: Bass bridge question > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Overs Pianos" <sec@overspianos.com.au> > To: <pianotech@ptg.org> > Sent: January 24, 2001 12:44 AM > Subject: Re: Bass bridge question > > > > Samuel Wolfenden wrote about the idea of designing scales with > > increased spacing between adjacent notes in the strike scale. He also > > constructed prototype instruments to investigate it, concluding that > > there was no benefit. I have long held the view that the same would > > apply to unnecessary flare in the bass scale at the bass bridge also. > > Thanks. I either missed that or forgot it. Could be either. > > > > > One possible benefit might be had where a piano exhibited a lower > > than desirable impedance on the bass bridge at the cross. A greater > > flare here would place the end of the bass bridge closer to the rim > > on the bent side, eg. the Welmar 6'0" grand suffers from a poor > > impedance match at the cross-over, as do some of the Boston grands, > > with a very wide belly across the back end. Flaring the bridge layout > > would place note C#29 (the last note in the bass in the case of the > > Welmar) closer to the rim, thereby raising the 'board impedance to a > > more acceptable level. Of course, a more sensible solution might be > > to redesign the piano with a narrower belly at the bass end. The > > instrument might be less costly in materials, yet better in > > performance. > > Yes, but then you would have that big soundboard to amplify the sound from > the strings. > > Del >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC