Recrowning the soundboard

[Richard Brekne]

On 23.05.2002 at 21:21 antares wrote:

>And not so long ago there was a very interesting discussion about old
>versus
>new soundboards which went on and on for a long time.
>
>I still stick to the opinion that a new soundboard sounds better
>because...it sounds better.
>A new Steinway always sounds nicer and stronger than an older one from for
>instance a hundred years ago, and if you do not agree than you take the old
>one and please, let me have the new one?
>
>(;>))
>
>PS.
>As stated before in older e-mails : I do have a lot of experience with wood
>people who renewed ribs on old boards and/or renewed complete soundboards,
>so I know what it sounds like.
>
>
>
>OK Richard...my friend, ready for another round?  (;
>


Boooiinggg.... round 2 :) 

Nah.... really all has been said..... and repeated. It's as much a matter of opinion and tastes as it is anything else. Ok Ok... a piece of wood that is rotten, molded and crumbles in your fingers like a stale marshmellow is never going to sound any good any more.... But leaving examples from planet Xenon aside, old wood can be successfully used and apparently has somewhat different sound characteristics then newer wood. Tho doubtless this point is disputed on back and forth from both sides of the fence.

I just find it all very interesting, and I see nothing about the facts that are available that should lead anyone to believe in the universal truth of one opinion over the other. 

One other point. Whenever someone takes the path of mentioning old wood in violins it is stated that violins and pianos are not even remotely alike, and that the structual differences are so large that any comparison of the two instruments are completely useless. For the life of me I fail to see how any of that  bears on the discussion of whether or not, and if so how, and if not so why not, wood can change its acoustics properties to some significant degree with the passing of time (read age). 
I cant remember ever reading anyone in any of these discussions actually acoustically or structurally comparing a violin to a piano. They have simply by way of example demonstrated that the idea that wood matures acoustically with age is still going strong and has yet to be successfully and descisefully refuted. If wood can indeed mature acoustically it surely matters not whether its useage is in a violin, a piano, a clarinet, or a wooden Tuba for criminees sakes. 

The funny (paradoxical) thing is... that in using the "A violin is not a piano" argument... one gives implied assent to the concept of wood ageing acoustically.... but only for violins.... but thats playing with grammatics. :) Point being... that if wood ageing is a no go... it matters not whether we are talking violins or outback zula flutes.

Nice to hear from you again my freind :)


>friendly greetings
>from
>
>Antares,
>
>