This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Erwinspiano@AOL.COM=20
To: pianotech@ptg.org=20
Sent: January 06, 2002 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: Stein grand unique board
In a message dated 1/4/2002 1:54:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, =
JIMRPT@AOL.COM writes:=20
Subj:Re: Stein grand unique board=20
Date:1/4/2002 1:54:17 PM Pacific Standard Time=20
From: JIMRPT@AOL.COM=20
Sender: owner-pianotech@ptg.org=20
Reply-to: pianotech@ptg.org=20
To: pianotech@ptg.org=20
Hi Jim ,Phil and list
=20
I would have jumped in sooner but have been gone. I was hoping =
this would generate this kind of discussion=20
I have no argument with the the physical law stated below but =
let me suggest for the sake of discussion that the primary energy source =
being considered in the pond analogy, the pebble tossed in, is the =
initiator of the waves action. The primal energy source. In the =
soundboard system the traveling wave set into motion by the hammer is =
the primal energy source and as long as the string vibrates the waves =
continue to radiate out from the primary energy source and dissipate =
into whatever by absorbtion,friction,heat or moving air.=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
I'll point out once again that the pond analogy is not a very good one. =
These are surface waves while the motion of the soundboard--at least the =
motion that is creating sound energy is quite different. The system is =
vibrating as a unified whole.
Perhaps Phil Ford and Charles Fredrick Stein has a valid point =
that we should consider the reflective wave as of lesser importance, =
though not unimportant, when designing a soundboard system, apparently =
Charles did.=20
As Del has said the soundboard system functions as system and =
what we seem to be doing here is consider the various individual =
component aspects as to there contribution to sound production as a =
system. Seems to me like a healthy thing for a think tank to do.=20
As long as there is any vibrations felt in the rim there are associated =
energy losses from the soundboard. Whether you view this as energy not =
reflected back into the soundboard or as energy losses from the =
soundboard to a less than perfectly massive and rigid rim is =
irrelevent--it is still reducing the sustain time of the system.=20
Another thought that occurs to me is, that however the listener =
would describe the overall sound of the Stein system, that sound will =
have to be partially ascribed to the lack of reflected energy from the =
rim on the straight side and curved side of the rim even though we can't =
dissect or isolate it. Alas another mystery.=20
How would you describe the function of those relatively thick ribs =
that--unless I completely mis-read your discription of them--remain =
solidly glued to the inner rim?
Also perhaps the fact that all the end grain of the soundboard =
panel is terminated at the belly rail, which as Del pointed out, adds =
all the stiffness the trebles require to function. Afterall sound =
travels along the grain faster than across. My deduction from all this =
is that the tail end of the piano is not as drastically compromised by =
having a pseudo free floating edge around the majority of its perimeter. =
And I would suggest that this is not even close to being a pseudo =
free-floating soundboard system. Free-floating means free-floating as in =
not attached to the rim in any way. And those ribs being glued to the =
inner rim are not at all free-floating. Nor is the soundboard system as =
long as the soundboard panel remains glued to those ribs.=20
Del
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/44/51/62/63/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC