At 10:41 AM -0600 12/2/01, Ron Nossaman wrote: > >Ron, >>What do you mean by blending impedance? >> > >Phil > >This is referring to the Conklin formula I posted (or something similar) >that gives you a relative approximation of the power/loudness/energy a >string will supply. Just like we try to avoid big jumps in tension and >inharmonicity across transitions from monochord to bichord to trichord, >from wrapped to plain, and from bridge to bridge, we don't want audible >volume differences at these transitions either. The impedance formula >attempts to give us a means to anticipate the approximate power levels >across these transitions so we can blend them inaudibly - in theory. It's >far from perfect, but it's a whole lot better than nothing. The soundboard, >rib scale, and bridge configuration naturally limits what you can do with >string scaling. Forgive me for being sceptical, Ron, but this is sounding more and more like a black art. First it is the Conklin formula, take it or leave it, and then it is something similar which gives an approximation -- in theory and is far from perfect but better than nothing. I've been using nothing and a bit of common sense for many years and the results sound a hell of a lot more reliable! I hope you'll answer the questions in my last message and let me see how this theory turns out in a real bass scale so that I can moderate my lack of enthusiasm. Then perhaps we can discover how Conklin arrived at this imperfect mantra. log JD sin delta ^ 0.2g
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC