piano/violin

[Farrell]

> If you simply think of
> the sound energy created by the strings alone,,, and what then is created
by the
> strings,,, of course the first word to come to mind is "amplifier".

The pianist finger originates a vertical motion with his/her finger. That
motion is transferred through the key and action components to the hammer.
The hammer transfers this energy of motion to the string when it hits it
(the string does in deed make a tiny bit of sound - but its surface area is
so small that it is difficult to hear - it moves so little air - and
further, this tiny sound or air motion from the string does not go on to
move the soundboard - hence no amplification). This MOTION of the string is
transferred to the bridge (all this is done like a soccer player kicking a
ball - the motion of the leg is transferred into motion of the ball, etc.),
and the bridge MOTION is transferred to the soundboard. The soundboard then
moves up and down. All the energy moving through the system was energy of
MOTION - physical chunks of stuff moving and pushing other things and making
them move. It just happens (by design of course) that the soundboard is low
in mass relative to its surface area and thus has the characteristic of
moving a great volume of air and thus CREATING/CAUSING a sound - not
amplifying it.

Ya know the goofy coffee table toy where you have about five steel balls
hanging from two strings and they sit in a nice row at rest? You pull an end
ball away from the others and let it fly and it strikes the adjacent one and
the three center ones appear not to move, but the other end one flies away?
It's kinda like that. The first ball is the pianists finger, the center
balls are the action/strings/bridge (watch 'em, they do move a tad), and the
last ball is the soundboard - only on the piano, the last ball is shaped
differently and it has a different density. It's all motion until you move
the high-surface-area-low-density object - which does of course simply move
air - but we animals can sense that air movement as sound!

And that's all I have to say about that!

Forest, er, a, Terry Farrell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Brekne" <rbrekne@broadpark.no>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: piano/violin


>
>
> Duplexdan@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> > If i may I'd like to jump in on transducer, Del.My old Webster's New
> > collegiate Dictionary , last printing 1950, has this definition:
> >
> > A device actuated by poe\wer from one system and supplying power to a
second
> > system.
> >
> > It would seem that the transducing characteristic of the soundboard that
Del
> > points out is absolutely correct. The only question I feel that
mitigates the
> > renaming of the board from amlifier to transducer is :
> >
> > What kind of power? There is no question that the board transduces the
power
> > from the strings to the bridge to the board. But the effect of the
> > transduction is exactly to amplify the sound of the strings, is it not?
>
> This second is not doubt the source of the differeing use of terms. I like
the
> term transducer best also... but I dont often make a point out of trying
to
> explain why the word amplifier is "wrong" to a pianist. If you simply
think of
> the sound energy created by the strings alone,,, and what then is created
by the
> strings,,, of course the first word to come to mind is "amplifier".
Probably
> much the same kind of thing going on regarding the term "bridge roll"  I
would
> guess.
>
>
> >
> > Dan Franklin, RPT
>
> --
> Richard Brekne
> RPT, N.P.T.F.
> Bergen, Norway
> mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
>
>