The finite life of wood grain

[Euphonious Thumpe]

     We've been through this again and again and again on this list, 
and my opinion ( which will be ridiculed by some here, but I have no interest in further defending ) is that old wood that has been in decent 
( reasonably clean, dry ) environments is acoustically superior. 
     ( As in: "Rich" and "Warm" sounding. ) 
     But this superior resonance can not be expressed, when the crown has imploded.
     I'm doing my first full soundboard recrowning according to a  new method ( not yet discussed here ) and may report the results.
      

Euphonious Thumpe


--- On Tue, 10/21/08, Richard Brekne <ricb at pianostemmer.no> wrote:

> From: Richard Brekne <ricb at pianostemmer.no>
> Subject: The finite life of wood grain
> To: pianotech at ptg.org
> Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 3:49 AM
> The whole problem with this <<soundboards die>>
> thing is first and 
> foremost the fact that there are way too many undead old
> soundboards 
> around. This goes for all types of soundboard
> constructions. 
> 
> Wood that is subjected to seasonal climate changes that are
> sufficiently 
> large is going to deteriorate no matter what the
> application. Wood that 
> is in stable enough conditions will last a very long time
> indeed. We see 
> many 100 year old instruments, particularly Steinways that
> have very 
> fine functioning soundboards. Full of life and punch, no
> so-called 
> killer octave, lovely response and lots of projection
> power.
> 
> The compression damage argument when matched up with the
> basic RC&S 
> philosophy gets shot in its foot.  A panel may indeed be
> very much 
> reduced in size cross grain compared to its original size
> due to 
> permanent compression set,  but when you dont rely on
> compression to 
> begin with to build a panel.. then this fact is by
> definition a plus. 
> Nothing about the permanent compression set inhibits the
> panel from 
> being re-used thus.  Only folks willingness to re-process
> an old 
> soundboard does.  I can refer to a discussion on the matter
> where Delwin 
> Fandrich himself says exactly this in an exchange between
> André, myself, 
> and Del about 8 years ago now.
> 
> There is also the subject of how well wood is seasoned
> before taken into 
> use. There are many 3-400 year old houses around here.
> Small houses made 
> completely of wood.  Mite damage is really the major
> problem. But those 
> that escaped that and were otherwise taken reasonably good
> care of are 
> in very fine shape. I have on the other hand 20 year old
> siding on my 
> 300 year old house that has developed wood rot in several
> places.  I've 
> re-painted every 3 years, done all the stuff you are
> supposed to do but 
> the stuff just cant match siding that was / is on houses
> that is from 
> the turn of the last century.  We see newer wood
> constructed houses 
> (from the 60's onwards) developing serious structural
> problems all the 
> time around here.
> 
> Cheers
> RicB
> 
> 
> 
>     This is a curious question directed toward Dale Erwin
> and other
>     soundboard people.
> 
>     Would it be fair to say that the majority of
> soundboards die after,
>     say, 80 to 100 years?  If that's true, then
> what's the major reason?
>     Is it climate, or the simple fact that the board has
> been under
>     pressure, or both of the the above?
> 
>     Also, this "death" is at the cellular /
> granular level, right? So
>     then "re-crowning" would be about as useful
> as putting new chrome on
>     a car with a destroyed chassis, eh?
> 
>     (Sorry if this is a dead horse already thoroughly
> beaten.)
> 
>     Thanks, and thank you again, Dale, for a great talk in
> Chicago.
>     David
> 
>     David B. Stang
>     Columbus Ohio

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com