soundboards

[D.L. Bullock]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Good points Stephane.  I would not keep every board I meet, either.  Same
for redheads.

D.L. Bullock  www.pianoworld.us

Do you or your family have a health challenge?  Put YOUR BODY’S OWN IMMUNE
SYSTEM to work for you----It is capable of repairing itself from EVERY
disease if you give it the right fuel.



Visit http://bullock.myglycostore.com to get the right fuel



Visit http://bullock.goldenkeys.net/ to investigate a great automated home
based business to get your products for free.


  -----Original Message-----
  From: Stéphane Collin [mailto:collin.s@skynet.be]
  Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:01 AM
  To: Pianotech
  Subject: Re: soundboards


  Hi all.

  The main stream of technically oriented thinking about piano soundboard
is, I believe, that it works as a transducer to transform the energy put
into the string by the hammer stroke into acoustic energy percieved as
sound.
  The easy way to appreciate a soundboard in this regard is to say :" the
better it does it's job, that is transform that energy with as less possible
loss and deformation, the better the soundboard ".  This is easy because
there are simple easily observable and controllable parameters that tell you
you are right in this regard : volume, sustain and evenness across the
scale.
  It is easy to observe that this piano has the ability to produce sounds of
more volume than that one, notes that sound longer, and characteristics that
change in a more smooth way over the scale.
  It is less easy, but feasable to control and apply desing parameters who
will obviously tend to reach the goal of maximizing those three aesthetic
parameters.

  While I am full of admiration for those who are dedicated to this research
(I know, this may not be obvious in my posts, but believe me, I really am :
it is just that I must advocate the other way of thinking), I just can't
hide my feeling, that this is an oversimplified way to think about the
matter.

  A soundboard is a filter (even a resonant one).  No way all the energy of
the string will ever end up in acoustic energy, nor will the ineluctable
losses ever be even through the scale.  And that is great.  A soundboard has
a personality that comes from what one would describe as defects in regard
of the basis parameters.  I would describe the personality of a board as the
unique blend it features between many more parameters, such as subtle and
aesthetically more or less interesting discrepencies curves in volume,
sustain and evenness across the scale of each of the partials of each note,
their thump, and the resonances in release phase.
  Unfortunately (ah, maybe not), this is much less easy to have under
control, and leads us to humility in front of the miracle of nature, as
there exist some blends that make you believe in god, while others, euh, not
really.

  This being said, my opinion about old soundboards is that they have
gathered with time (cell crush, down in resine percentage, loss of
elasticity, whatever) a stronger and more unique personality, as defined
here.  The whole life of a soundboard contributes to it's unique sound.
This doesn't mean that all personalities please me.  But the personalities
who do are not at all the most powerful and long lasting and most even
across scale of every parameter ones.

  Time for another idea that I would like to read reactions about.  About
those old violins who sound better, I think it is an optical illusion. After
all, a violin is cheap to make, compared with a piano.  So, when it is time
for a violin to be restored, exactly like pianos, the question arises
whether it is worth the restoration, as everybody knows that for a cheap
instrument, the restoration costs are sometimes superior to the cost of a
new similar one.  So, logically, the Strads that we still see now are the
ones who were from the beginning considered as good instruments : good
enough to be worth restoring and restoring again.  Time has made the
selection, like the instruments of Guarnieri or Amati.  Be sure those who
still exist represent a small percentage of the best instruments of the best
makers.  Be sure the same makers have made instruments that were not
considered, in their time, worth to be restored when needed, and that is why
they disappeared.
  Same for old boards, in my opinion.  When I hear an old piano in need of
restoration, I always take the time to tune it, and I can then hear, even
with worn hammers, loss of crown etc. if the board has a personality (that
is, thus, a blend of so called defects) that makes me want to give it it's
chance to appear in full monthy.  If I don't feel it has potential, I don't
buy it.

  Newer boards may or may not have personality.  In my world, they are like
1m75 blondes with B2 breasts and sinusoidal shape at hips with 65 kg weight
and red lipstick.  Why do I prefer redheads with the nose slightly bent to
the left a tiny bit overweight and with intelligence in the look ?

  Friendly greetings,

  Stéphane Collin.





  ----- Original Message -----
    From: Performance Music
    To: Piano-Tech
    Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 7:52 PM
    Subject: soundboards


    List,
        I would like to start a thread about soundboards.

        Many technicians replace soundboards, when the soundboard is 'dead'.
Is it because the wood is 'dead' and will no longer amplify the sound, or is
it because of other factors such as the board losing its crown, etc?

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/28/66/33/e7/attachment.htm

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