[CAUT] Semantics

Barbara Richmond piano57 at comcast.net
Thu May 14 07:09:08 MDT 2009



<big grin>   



And...I've heard some pianos that sounded like banjos!  



br 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Farris" <Jfarris at mail.utexas.edu> 
To: "Ed Sutton" <ed440 at mindspring.com>, caut at ptg.org 
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:50:52 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Semantics 

I'm waiting for someone to say something about imagining the "ideal banjo". 

Respectfully, 
Jeff 


Jeff Farris 
Piano Technician 
School of Music 
UT Austin 
jfarris at mail.utexas.edu 
512-471-0158 




On 5/14/09 1:39 AM, "Ed  Sutton" <ed440 at mindspring.com> wrote: 

> Just think of "transducer" in terms of its simple Latin roots: it "leads 
> across" power from one system to another system. 
> 
> Now, imagine an "ideal banjo," i.e. a membrane with zero impedence, in a 
> large open space. If you strike the string, all of the energy is immediately 
> transduced into the air "Pow!" There is no reflection, no period motion. 
> Eveything is displaced once, and returns to rest as the impulse radiates out 
> into the atmosphere. There is no "vibration," but there is still 
> transduction of the energy. 
> 
> In the piano and recital hall, there are many impedences which reflect the 
> motions and form them into standing waves, which we call vibrations, sounds, 
> overtones and such. It is still transduction. The sound always fades away as 
> the energy is absorbed by the many resistances in the situation. 
> 
> Ed S. 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Greg Soule" <afmamh7 at bellsouth.net> 
> To: <caut at ptg.org> 
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 1:05 AM 
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Semantics 
> 
> 
>> Wow, this has been an interesting thread.  (some of you probably 
>> abandoned it long ago) 
>> 
>> When I wrote, "I think it is incorrect to consider sound and vibration  as 
>> two different types of energy.  Sound IS vibration." I hoped it  would 
>> elicit responses (and I think it did) that would finally clarify  to me 
>> why it is claimed the soundboard is a transducer.  The way the  term 
>> "sound" was repeatedly defined simply as "what we hear" I found a 
>> distraction, because it said nothing to differentiate the types of  energy 
>> found in the string, board, air, etc., which is the key to  understanding 
>> the whole kaboodle.  It sounded to me more like some  fuzzy philosophical 
>> tangent on human perception ("If a tree falls in  the forest . . ."). 
>> 
>> So, bear with me while I lay this all out, and tell me if I'm on track 
>> here . . . 
>> 
>> The energy of the string or soundboard has the characteristic of 
>> vibrating from a fixed point, and the vibrating body is under tension; 
>> these factors cause it to want to return to a point of repose.  The 
>> vibration has frequency and amplitude.  (Finer points of distinction 
>> could be made between the ways the string and the board vibrate, but  not 
>> by me.) 
>> 
>> Although the vibrational energy imparted to the surrounding air also  has 
>> frequency and amplitude, air is a very different kind of medium  because 
>> air molecules are not anchored to anything.  Since the energy  has no 
>> fixed point of vibration, it disperses in all directions like  ripples in 
>> a pond.  It is a vibration that leaves its point of origin  and never goes 
>> back unless acted upon by an outside force.  This is  the critical 
>> distinction of acoustic energy.  Sound IS acoustic energy. 
>> 
>> Del Fandrich's illustration brings it home . . . a panel of wood that 
>> vibrates when struck CREATES acoustical energy in the surrounding  air. 
>> This is a different type of energy than that of the string or  soundboard, 
>> and this is why it is proper to refer to the soundboard as  a transducer. 
>> 
>> Furthermore, even though the term "transducer" in its most common  usage 
>> is borrowed from electrical engineering, and electrical  engineers might 
>> scratch their heads in confusion when they hear piano  technicians use it 
>> about their pianos, it is indeed the best term to  apply to how the energy 
>> changes between the soundboard and the  surrounding air.  We use it 
>> knowingly and confidently. 
>> 
>> For further reading class, please see: 
>> http://www.pianobuilders.com/soundboards.html 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustics 
>> http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Theme_sound_medium.html 
>> 
>> Forgive me for being both dense and persistent, thank you for your 
>> patience and I respect you all very highly, 
>> Greg Soule 
>> (and with a final flourish of self-deprecating humor, he returned to  join 
>> all the other lurkers) 
> 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20090514/178d7527/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the CAUT mailing list

This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC