[CAUT] Semantics

[Ron Nossaman]

Joe Wiencek wrote:
> 
> The whole point of this was not to explain everything about soundboards 
> or anything else, but to once again try to make the point that a 
> soundboard isn't an amplifier.
> 
> I hate to kick a dead horse, but I have found in past Journals, 
> citations of some of the origins of confusion, i.e., in the August 1982 
> Journal, an article by Priscilla and Joel Rappaport, pp. 22-23, 
> mentions, "The bridge, which is made of hardwood (maple or beech) 
> transmits this energy to the soundboard.  The soundboard, made of spruce 
> and being under tension, is receptive to this energy, and services as an 
> amplifier to the sound."   
> 
> My only comment is that our profession is an evolving and dynamic 
> exercise, and is that not better than re-writing obituaries?
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Wiencek, RPT

There have been innumerable instances through history where a 
perceived and generally acknowledged authority has been wrong, 
or at least inaccurate. This would qualify as one of them, 
pending the making of a better case. I am haunted more and 
more by the creeping  (creepy) conviction that to most folks, 
the more rational and logical truth is secondary to the 
established (albeit unsubstantiated) perception of the masses, 
and isn't effectively assailable by anything so mundane as 
evidence. This, oddly, disturbs me. For instance, in what sort 
of circumstance would spruce be under tension in a soundboard? 
And should it be, how would that make it receptive to "this" 
energy? Everyone and his dog makes the statements, but the 
request for qualification and clarification echoes into the 
void unanswered.

And how many obituaries are accurate, having brought it up? An 
obituary being, effectively, the last resume.
Passing in the night,
Ron N