Me too Stephen Me Too!! Greg Farrell wrote: > ? I won't go into > ? thicknessing technique for a big panel by hand planing, unless someone is > interested - > ? but it doesn't really take all that long to do and it's not hard. > > You bet I am interested! That is just what I am looking for: a good > professional method that does not require a big machine $ outlay. I have > planed a bit - but usually on the edge of boards. Although I do plane my > soundboard shims. I really have no experience hand planing a large flat > surface to thickness. I would love to hear of your technique. It sounds like > it would be right up the alley for someone like me. Thanks. > > Terry Farrell > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Birkett" ?birketts@wright.aps.uoguelph.ca? > To: ?pianotech@ptg.org? > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 10:17 AM > Subject: Re: my own Soundboard > > ? Terry wrote: > ? ? Am I on to a simple workable solution here? Or am I just treading water > = > ? ? before I sink? > ? ? How do others in the "one or two soundboards a year" shop do it? Thanks. > ? > ? With all this talk about monster macho sanding machinges, Terry, I'd step > back a moment > ? and think about things. Why do you (or any one else for that matter) think > a better > ? soundboard will result? Is it because you think a better surface will be > obtained? or > ? is it just quicker? or is it just easier to sand a board and requires less > practical > ? skill? or is the "perfectly even thickness" from a machine desirable? or > is it because > ? you think a better board will result from following semi-industrial > practice as closely > ? as possible? I would question any of that reasoning. > ? > ? You will always get a cleaner surface by hand planing rather than sanding, > no matter > ? what kind of sander you use - b i g machine or hand method. Planing cuts > fibres, > ? severing them, while sanding compresses them. A "fuzzines" level is > unavoidable from > ? sanding. PLaning leaves a surface that shimmers, but only if no sanding > has been used > ? on it previously. > ? > ? Planing technique is not difficult to acquire, and there is little $ > outlay involved. > ? I can understand a production shop, perhaps, justifying the use of a big > machine for > ? boards, but that rationalization of the machine purchase does not apply to > even a > ? semi-production shop, let alone an individual making a few boards per year > in a small > ? shop. I can plane a board in the time it would take you to truck yours to > a shop with a > ? big sander - it doesn't take long with the right tools, and a well-tuned > plane. > ? > ? Once you have your panel glued up you surface one side, generally the one > which will be > ? visible. After you've gone over to flatten with a smoothing plane you need > to clean the > ? surface. For softwoods, including Sitka, avoid scrapers which generally > only work on > ? hardwoods. Get a good block plane (Record will do and inexpensive), fit it > with a thick > ? Hock blade, set the mouth _real_ tight and you can clean pretty much any > surface. > ? (European fir, which I'm using for the current soundboard, is stringier > than anything > ? Sitka has to offer, and the block plane works fine). > ? > ? Now you flip it and tackle the thicknessing. Given the design is an > evenly-thick board > ? with tapered edge, you obviously have to aim first for even-thickness. Now > you have to > ? keep some perspective on this - there is "even" and "even", but there is > nothing magic > ? about achieving the same thickness to a fraction of a mm. It's not a > metal-working shop > ? project where things are measured to thous. And for that matter > (soundboard thread > ? notwithstanding) this evenness spec is an arbitrary factor that has more > basis in human > ? perception than in anyhting to do with the way soundboard actually work. > If a machine > ? gives you something "perfectly even" automatically then so-be-it, but if a > different > ? working practice naturally gives a more relazed tolerance then that too is > fine. No need > ? to fight to get machine-like tolerances when it doesn't matter anyway. I > won't go into > ? thicknessing technique for a big panel by hand planing, unless someone is > interested - > ? but it doesn't really take all that long to do and it's not hard. > ? > ? And on one other point it's interesting that Sitka is now considered _the_ > wood for > ? soundboards, although most makers of historical instruments tend to avoid > it like the > ? plague. And the use of Sitka really came to be simply because the > convenient Eastern > ? spruce stocks were used up, so they looked to the lefthand side for > lumber, although > ? Eastern spruce stocks have recovered since the early 20th century now to > some extent. > ? There are arbitary "quality" issues previously discussed here (easthetic, > not acoustic) > ? - remember my orange crate stock soundboard? Playing devil's advocate, > though, I would > ? suggest that you can pretty much make a decent board out of _any_ wood by > modifying > ? design parameters to accomodate...but that is treading into the territory > of the "big > ? soundboard thread".... > ? > ? Stephen > ? > ? Stephen Birkett Fortepianos > ? Authentic Reproductions of 18th and 19th Century Pianos > ? 464 Winchester Drive > ? Waterloo, Ontario > ? Canada N2T 1K5 > ? tel: 519-885-2228 > ? mailto: birketts@wright.aps.uoguelph.ca > ? -- Greg Newell mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC