Yes, but I think this misses the distinction between the purely scientific ("sound is vibration") and the perceptual, even metaphysical the deeper one digs ("vibration is sound/music because we hear it"). In the discussion of whether the soundboard is a transducer, the former matters, the latter does not. I'm at the point where I think I understand why some say the soundboard is a transducer. As you explained, the vibration is "changed from a large amplitude vibration of a small area (string) into a large area small amplitude movement of the air over the soundboard." But I'm not sure I agree it should be called a transducer - it is still just vibrations to vibrations. Oh, well. With an open mind, Greg Soule -- (sent from webmail) -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Don Mannino" <DMannino at kawaius.com> > > Greg Soule wrote: > >I am not an acoustician, but I think it is incorrect to consider > >sound and vibration as two different types of energy. > >Sound IS vibration. > > Yes, but vibration is not sound until we can hear it. That's what the > soundboard is needed for - to make it audible. > > Don Mannino
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC