Ron, Thanks. I actually saw your response to JD's post about 15 minutes after I posted this, when I had worked from e-mail 150 down to about e-mail 70. But since we're on the subject, I believe you mentioned in that post that you use a modified form of the Conklin formula and then you proceeded to give the Conklin formula. In what way do you modify it, or is that proprietary? Phil --- Phillip Ford Piano Service & Restoration 1777 Yosemite Ave - 215 San Francisco, CA 94124 On Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:41:19 Ron Nossaman wrote: > >>Ron, >>What do you mean by blending impedance? >> >>Phil > >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. > >Ron N >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC