>On the one hand it was recognized that the bridge >does >indeed get moved physically up and down to some degree by the strings and >this to >some degrees moves the soundboard. To which degree was that, other than affirmative, and what other degrees were offered and explained? Note the word "explained" here. >On the other hand it was also conceeded that >completely immobilizing the bridge, inhibiting this physical movement, leaves >some sound to be heard from the board. Which is also easily enough explained by the fact that the strings will shake the whole structure from the other end too. The plate, pinblock, and rim will be moved by a vibrating string, albeit less so, just like the bridge would be. NOTHING IS ABSOLUTELY RIGID, and A SMALL MOVEMENT IS NOT NO MOVEMENT AT ALL. And while you may be able to hear the result, it will hardly be quite acceptable as piano sound. >Take for example the rock in the pond illustrated presented in this >discussion to >clarify this buisness about soundboard ripples. A rock is dropped into the pond >and we see surface ripples. Brilliant... but what was completely overlooked was >the fact that there are a lot of things going on under the surface at the same >time. What has apparently been completely overlooked is the blanket on the clothesline analogy, which was presented as a better model, and has nothing under the surface at all to confuse anyone. That was covered. >In any case... it would seem to me that neither of the theories presented is >sufficient alone to be the basis of any good working model of the panel. Tho >either may have their uses as a particular perspective. I sure couldn't tell, since I never did get an explanation of how the other theory was supposed to work other than repeated restatements of the theory and the insistence that it was correct. Perhaps I missed it. I didn't read a single observation or demonstration that wasn't easily enough explained with conventional physics. Perhaps I missed that too. I also seem to have missed any counter argument based on published physics that refuted any of my models or explanations. You've read these posts over and over. Perhaps you can tell me where this compelling evidence in support of the opposing theory appeared in these posts. I can't see that they have made any case whatsoever much less left room for lingering doubt but, as I said, I might have missed it. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC