Hi Dale I suspect you are probably right, and that the general idea was a flat board with minimal support from the ribs. That being said, they always seem to fail at the same place, so I just thought maybe it was possible to brace the panel a bit stronger in that area, and add just a little bit of crown. I am not really sure, of course just how much impact that will have on the sound...ergo I'm asking for feedback and advice. I take it you mean that I should probably stick to basically the same configuration as the origional ?? Cheers RicB > Erwinspiano@aol.com wrote: > > Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no writes: > > Hi Joe > > > As far as the reasoning for the ribs... take a gander at > this picture with the shape of the bridge roughly drawn in. > Seems to me they were maybe thinking that this ribbing > pattern would support the bridge area against downbearing. > One rib traces the bridge almost dead underneath for most of > the bass lower treble. The two longest ribs run on either > side, and along with the cross rib they perhaps were meant > to hold the whole area up. > > > Ric ,your assuming that maker added any appreciable downbearing at > all to the system. After working with so many good sounding uprights > over the years which had negligble bearing it may be safe to say that > that most uprights are mainly mass driven systems not requiring much > ribbing support except to keep the board more rigid even though it's > flat. I suspect your square & many like it are the possibly the same > kind of concept. > Dale -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC