John Delacour wrote: > AAt 7:09 PM -0800 12/3/01, Delwin D Fandrich wrote: > >Is this a serious question?....There was still some sound there, but > >it was muted > >and thin. > > > >...The bridge movement moves the soundboard causing it to vibrate > >much like the > >diaphragm vibrates in the loudspeaker. > > At 7:25 PM -0600 12/3/01, Ron Nossaman wrote: > > > but you suggest the effect will be to kill the bass of the piano as though > > >the soundboard and bridge were not there, since the loudspeaker effect of > > >the soundboard depends on the solenoid effect of the bridge. > > > >That should be the case. Just like clamping the driving coil of a speaker > >cone to the magnet. The transducer can't transduce if it can't move. > > So way back then you said it "should be the case", according to your > theories that immobilizing the bridge should prevent any vibrations > reaching the soundboard, and Del states categorically that the bridge > moves and acts as a speaker solenoid BUT that there was a muted and > thin sound. I have never suggested that the immobilizing of the > bridge will have NO effect on the sound. My point has always been > that a good deal more sound will be audible when the bridge is > immobilized than would be heard from the string and bridge alone, > that this sound is emitted from the soundboard and has reached it NOT > as a result of the "solenoid effect". If the solenoid of a speaker > is jammed, no sound at all will be emitted from the cone. The two > cases are completely different. > Touche'. In otherwords.... the diaphram analogy is far from adequate to fully describe all of the sound producing elements of the soundboard ??. -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC