[CAUT] Semantics

[Delwin D Fandrich]

It might be easier to understand if things were kept in context. 
 
Of course it has something to do with sound. It has to do with the sound being
produced by, not amplified by, the soundboard. 
 
ddf


  _____  

From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Sloane,
Benjamin (sloaneba)
Sent: May 14, 2009 5:40 AM
To: 'caut at ptg.org'
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? 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20090514/10775fe3/attachment-0001.htm>