Sitka EMC

[Erwinspiano@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 11/10/2002 8:08:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
RNossaman@cox.net writes:


> Subj:Re: Sitka EMC 
> Date:11/10/2002 8:08:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:RNossaman@cox.net">RNossaman@cox.net</A>
> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
>                    Hey Ron,

                     Is that the short list? Grin. Whew I'm outa breath just 
readin it. Instructive though. Archive it so next time this comes up you can 
just spit it back out as a public service announcement and you'll feel better 
all over again.
                      Dale Erwin

> 
> >           I have some Sitka spruce boards made from air dried lumber 
> > cured for  twenty years. I can't tell a stitch of difference subjectively 
> 
> > or objectively in the sound. It ain't just one thing.
> >          Dale Erwin
> 
> Nor is it the rib material, nor the annular ring angle, nor the rings per 
> inch, nor the speed of sound through the material in any given direction, 
> nor the tap tone of the assembly, nor the crown of the bridge or lack 
> thereof, nor the vertical contour of the inner rim, nor the amount of 
> sunlight per day the tree got on the North, South, East, West, or Underside 
> 
> of the mountain, nor the color or magic ingredients of the finish applied, 
> nor the number of go bars applied per second in the assembly process, nor 
> the centering of the high point of a constant radius curved rib directly 
> under the bridge, nor the glass-like hardness of the glue used, nor the 
> doweling of the bridge to the ribs, nor the cutouts under the bridge 
> between ribs, nor the total soundboard area being bigger than anyone else's 
> 
> for a piano that size, nor the absolute perfect accuracy of achieving an 
> exact 60', or 70', or 100' radius in the ribs, nor the necessity of drying 
> the panel down to 4.725% MC (or whatever), +- 0.01%, nor the necessity of 
> having the angle of the inner rim EXACTLY match the landing slope of the 
> crowned board, nor the ribs being EXACTLY fitted to the sides, bottom, and 
> most importantly, the ENDS of the rim mortices (to maintain the crown), nor 
> 
> the need for the panel to exactly meet the outer rim for optimal energy 
> transfer, nor for the dense grain to go in the treble, while the looser 
> grain goes in the bass, nor for the treble cap plate to be fitted to a 
> panel that's beveled down to the belly bar so the high frequency energy of 
> the treble won't leak out the open end grain. There are probably others, 
> but my brain just seized up and refused to go into it any further.
> 
> Oddly enough, sound quality seems to be directly related to how the 
> assembly responds to vibrational input from the strings, and observable 
> relationships between stiffness and mass and tonal production seem to 
> correlate pretty well without an inordinate number of small smoke producing 
> 
> demons obscuring the view. It is quite possible to ruin a perfectly good 
> piece of wood by cooking the strength out of it, but I think anyone would 
> be hard pressed to detect a quantifiable difference between competently 
> kiln dried, and air dried spruce in a soundboard.
> 
> But that's just my opinion. So what else is new?
> 
> Ron N
> 


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/2b/88/3c/15/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--