Treble resonator

[Ron Nossaman]

>I see how the "resonator" would make the belly rail stiffer (good), and it 
>would deter outward movement, but wouldn't a good solid hunk of timber be 
>at least effective in stiffening the belly rail and preventing any kind of 
>movement of the belly rail or rim - either way (not that I think we are 
>really worried about significant movement)? Seems to me a good timber in 
>there might even have more effect on stiffening the belly rail as it might 
>be easier to make a more massive (dowels, epoxy, etc.) bonding mechanism 
>between the timber/rail/rim?

Sure it would be at least as effective but, as Del pointed out, more 
difficult to install in an existing piano. Even if a beam brace were as 
easy to install as the "resonator", it's only a brace. You can't sell a 
"brace", but you can sell a bunch of "RESONATORs". The presumption, no, 
insistence among those looking on is that the name is an accurate and 
honest indicator of what the thing does. Look at the "bell" as an example. 
It would do the same thing if it were an amorphous iron glob painted blue 
and called a Smurf, and more if it were an inconspicuous black wooden beam 
brace with a nose bolt, but because of it's name and shape, it is assigned 
all sorts of magical acoustic powers. Yet somehow, in spite of these 
magical acoustic powers, that's still the killer octave with all the 
characteristics that earned it the name.

And since someone will inevitably point this out, no, I don't "believe" the 
killer octave is "bad" because it's called the killer octave. The marketing 
department didn't name the killer octave, techs did because of it's too 
often obvious problems.


>Seems to me the main advantage with the "resonator" is a mental one for 
>those that subscribe to the belief that soundboards go flat because the 
>rim and belly rail migrate outwards.

We can thank Mason & Hamlin for that, and they still make the same claim.

Ron N