[CAUT] Semantics

[Keith Roberts]

I should have said 'amplitude of the partials'. We are not talking about
sound at this stage.

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Keith Roberts <keithspiano at gmail.com>wrote:

> You modify the vibration in the wire by changing the shape of the hammer
> and the spring chariteristics of the hammer. This imparts a different wave
> and nodal pattern which alters the volume of the partials.
> Keith Roberts
>
>   On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Chris Solliday <csolliday at rcn.com>wrote:
>
>>  Ben Sloane,
>> That's Dr. Sanderson and Verituner. What's the point of being such a
>> little snot on this list? Don't you have some work to do?
>> Chris Solliday rpt
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Sloane, Benjamin (sloaneba) <sloaneba at ucmail.uc.edu>
>> *To:* 'caut at ptg.org'
>>  *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:40 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [CAUT] Semantics
>>
>>   “This is not amplified sound; there was no original sound to be
>> amplified, only the mechanical energy stored in the vibrating string.”
>>
>>
>>
>>    What I don’t understand about this excerpt is this. If what I do has
>> nothing to do with sound, and everything to do with a vibrating string, then
>> why are so many piano technicians deciding they need to consolidate all
>> their energies to modifying sound, and leaving modifying string tension for
>> correct string vibration to some guys named Sanderson, Reyburn, Dr.
>> Verituner, Sir Tunelab, and their apologist, Baldassin?
>>
>>
>>
>>    Furthermore, how do we consider those who leave modifying string
>> vibrations to others, assuming this is all about string vibration, and not
>> sound, good piano technicians at all in light of this conviction?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] *On Behalf Of
>> *Delwin D Fandrich
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:10 PM
>> *To:* caut at ptg.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CAUT] Semantics
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> | To me, the transducer argument *de-couples* the strings and
>> | the soundboard--(by doing this "transducing," taking one
>> | thing and making it another).  That goes against everything
>> | I've read about piano acoustics.
>>
>> This would rather depend on what you are reading.
>>
>> To be sure, Wm Braid White wrote eloquently, if some what confusingly,
>> about the *power of resonance*, that mysterious property he found in
>> certain materials—namely spruce—to *amplify* the *sonorous quality* of
>> the strings. Thus he was able to state that “more resonating power is
>> required for the relatively weaker treble strings than for the relatively
>> stronger bass strings.” In this way he was able to explain why piano
>> builders had found it necessary to make their soundboard panels thicker in
>> the treble area and thinner in the bass area. In 1909 White did not yet have
>> to contend with the so-called “Diaphragmatic" soundboard.
>>
>> But that was then and this is now. So far as I know there is no modern
>> writer who speaks of the piano soundboard system as an amplifier. In the
>> *Five Lectures* series, Klaus Wogram writes, “The soundboard transforms
>> the mechanical vibrations into radiated sound.” Benade (*Fundamentals of
>> Musical Acoustics*) discusses the soundboard as a "two-dimensional driven
>> plate." This plate, by means of forced vibration (the stored mechanical
>> energy of the strings) creates *sound* (acoustical energy) by means of
>> the resulting physical motion. For Fletcher & Rossing (*The Physics of
>> Musical Instruments*) it is described thus: “Acoustically, the soundboard
>> is the main radiating member in the instrument, transforming some of the
>> mechanical energy of the strings and bridges into acoustical energy.”
>>
>> It might be helpful to try a little experiment. Locate a thin piece of
>> wood several inches wide and a few inches long. Now locate a small hammer.
>> With the thin—and so far silent—wood panel in one hand tap its surface with
>> the hammer. Sound (acoustical energy) is created when the hammer strikes
>> (mechanical energy) the wood panel. It is an impulse sound, of course, and
>> it dies out very quickly but if you could make your hammer strikes fast
>> enough (vibrating mechanical energy) the resulting sound would become a tone
>> (continuous acoustical energy).
>>
>> By striking the piece of wood with the hammer you created sound, or
>> acoustical energy. It wasn’t free—you had to invest mechanical energy to get
>> it—but that acoustical energy was not amplified from anything. It was
>> created. Now picture the soundboard bridge being struck repeatedly and
>> rapidly by a series of tiny hammer blows (the vibrating string) and picture
>> the soundboard responding to those blows by slight movements. Because of its
>> large size the soundboard will create sound—acoustical energy. This is not
>> amplified sound; there was no original sound to be amplified, only the
>> mechanical energy stored in the vibrating string. (And let’s not quibble
>> over the minute amount of sound created by the vibrating string(s). This is
>> completely overwhelmed by the wash of acoustical energy coming from the
>> soundboard.)
>>
>> Semantically we could, I suppose, quibble over whether the piano
>> soundboard system should be called a *transformer*—“…a thing which
>> transforms something”—or a *transducer*—"a device for converting
>> variations in one physical quantity, as pressure, brightness, etc.,
>> quantitatively into variations in another, as voltage, position, etc.” (Both
>> from the *OED*) What we cannot do, at least not if we want our language
>> to meet even minimal standards of technical accuracy, is call the piano
>> soundboard system an amplifier. Over the past century our understanding of
>> how the piano works has evolved considerably as has the language used to
>> describe and discuss it.
>>
>> Words and their meanings in a technical community—and both CAUT and
>> PianoTech are technical communities—are important. They convey certain
>> defined technical meanings to the participants. These are not casual
>> discussions over the Sunday barbecue with Aunt Matilda. To misuse technical
>> words or to apply one's own meanings to them—even if that usage was in vogue
>> a hundred years ago—can only mislead and confuse the reader or participant.
>>
>> ddf
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20090514/0198f484/attachment-0001.htm>