[CAUT] Capacitive Duractance

[Jeff Tanner]

Kevin Fortenberry wrote:
"Thanks to all--as everyone's opinion is valuable, even when we are wrong. 
Also, a note to all who still want to think of a soundboard as an amplifier: 
..."

I'd like to clear up a bit of this confusion about people wanting to think 
of the soundboard as an amplifier.  I never accused the soundboard of being 
an amplifier, per se, and when it was explained, I accepted the latest 
scientific definition (even though it kind of sounds like you guys are 
basically giving old words new definitions).  What I originally offered was 
from a slightly different perspective.  Not referring to the soundboard as 
an "amplifier", but the sensation that since we perceive the sound to be 
louder [larger, more powerful], we perceive that the sound has been 
"amplified", and without the bridge and soundboard or some other similarly 
functioning structure, that would not be possible, whatever the scientific 
explanation.

While it might not fit the latest fad definition, in my mind that is not an 
incorrect description, employing the dictionary definition I found (the one 
you guys are using is not there).  I was accused of poor communication. 
When I was in school, we learned that communication involves two processes, 
one of which is a combination of inference and interpretation.  In other 
words, the reader or listener bears a portion of responsibility in the 
communication process.

"If it helps you to think of it that way, that's ok--just please try to keep 
it in your own mind and stop trying to change the minds of "the greats" who 
have been piano "engineers and pioneers" for so many more years than most of 
us."

That's really the point, isn't it?  Piano technicians are a melting pot of 
people from very diverse backgrounds.  Some are engineer/physicist/designer 
types, and have spent years in the study of that sector of the field. Much 
respect goes to them for what they do.  But the rest of us may have some 
limited interest and knowledge in that sector of the trade, and others of us 
may not, and may not have the time nor the incentive to invest time towards 
going back to school and learning physics just so we will know the 
differences in the definitons that they use from those that we use.  That 
should be ok, too.  And there's nothing wrong with that either.  We can't 
all learn it all, and in my opinion, we need to be willing to understand 
that we are going to use different language to communicate the same concept. 
It's English, folks.  We have to do that every day.

Now, how we GOT there, was talking about the Accujust hitch pin and how I 
suspect that by its natural properties, it is capable of a more efficient 
transfer of vibration - especially the hammer strike - from the backlength 
of the strings to the plate, which rings rather loudly.  I incorrectly used 
the word "amplifies", when I would have probably been more correct to say 
more "efficient transfer", than if the string were pinched to the plate.

But it became more important to argue over whether or not the soundboard was 
an "amplifier" than for someone to please explain that if it is not possible 
that the Accujust hitch pin actually enables a louder plate ring, why?  I've 
given examples of other types of similar systems which harvest vibration 
(because longer length allows them to vibrate more freely) and channel them 
to another body quite efficiently.  But the only responses I've heard have 
been along the lines of, "I don't think that's happening because I've not 
heard the sound you're describing."

Get in a non-soundproofed 8x10 practice room trying to tune a Baldwin grand, 
and I guarantee it'll drive you nuts from then on.

I hope what I'm writing makes sense. I'm trying to type with a 6 year old 
begging for my attention and an 8 year old begging to use the computer. 
We're all from different areas of life.
Tanner