Ron,
As you make the claim that the model you refer to and its implications which
I think have been repeatedly advocated by yourself, Del and Ron O. in repeated
postings on this list is scientifically grounded, and in fact, I have no doubt it
is, then I suggest we all should proceed to examine the scientific bases of this
model and those of the model of soundboard behavior and their implications which
flow from the concepts of string/bridge energy transfer as suggested by J. Delacour
and myself. As we have agreed that we disagree as to the nature and degree
of flexion or motion, if any, at the bridge/string interface and its implications
then further contention on this point is useless.
Let us then proceed in regard to soundboards to consider the stress/strain
relationships; the nature of the load applied, its vibratory characteristics, the
deterioration for design purposes, if any; sound radiation and the possibilities
for sound improvement or deterioration over time. My conclusions with regard to
this matter, are quite at odds with and substantially different than those
expressed by the three of you, who have long derided any contrary view in this
forum.
. Gentlemen, it may be the case that in undergoing this proposed examination of
the model you espouse new facts may be suggested which may suggest, in the
interests of intellectual accuracy, a reconsideration of the model upon which
you predicate your theories. Please, take no offense. Or perhaps, we on the
opposing side will, in the same interests of intellecual accuracy, have to make
such a revision, and even though I think not were that the case it would be far
from offensive to me. In point of fact were it to improve my understanding then it
were an effort well made. .
I have to stress, once again, even though I disagree with you, with Del
Fandrich and with Ron Overs, there is nothing personal in this disagreement -
which is merely of the nature of a clarification of concepts and their
implications, and that in fact I have substantial respect for the ideas of all
three of you, and as I have stated previously, markedly enjoy, even where I
disagree, your posts and the ideas they express. The posts and ideas submitted by
you three are a pleasure to read and understand and the posts, generally, are
among that small percentage of those on the list I save for further reflection.
Please take no offense at the coming formulations and criticisms of the model
apparently espoused by the three of you and the subsequent discussion.which is
likely to ensue. It may well likely be more bruising to the ego of us all than
those of the last week. We, and certainly me, must all strive to sever the nexus
of emotions and ideas and take what I said earlier, point and counterpoint,
argument and counterargument, as the basis for a further progress in our own
understandings, restraining our own natural emotional reactions when criticism of
deeply held beliefs may be encountered. As I have said before, such I think is
the utility of this list.
A month or so ago, in a post entitled Confessions of a Soundboard Heretic, a
number of, again "troublesome questions"
were implicit and should have been evident to any proponent of your model. No
notice was taken by its advocates who apparently did not wish to be troubled by any
of these issues. As it was however, J.Delacour, Richard Brekne, and somewhat
later, Dale Erwin, offered reasonable observations that the model and its
implications, propounded and ardently offered as the only possible description of
the utility, and function of soundboards, could possibly be in question, or at
the very least contain troubling inconsistencies needful of examinations. The
press of business precluded me from further postings on the subject at the time.
I intend to revist these implications and "troublesome questions" but would first
ask any of you to be so generous as to take the time to post a brief description
of the characteristics of your model, even though the archives are full of this
material, so that I could understand it better. How does it work?
Regards, Robin Hufford .
> >Ron,
> > It should be easy to see from recent posts that at least two people, and
> >possibly more, separated by a large and wet ocean and part of a continent,
> >never having laid eyes on each other and never having spoken or communicated
> >directly, except by this list have arrived at essentially similar conclusions.
> >So your count, had it been accurate, would have been at least two. I daresay
> >there are others.
>
> Absolutely. Consider me corrected. I daresay there are also plenty more
> different and wonderful theories to be had in addition to these.
>
> >As to this so-called anonymous model, in spite of that it
> >represents opinions contrary to yours, those of Del and Ron O., surely you
> >can see it must represent differences in experiences, observations and
> >perspectives.
>
> As it should have been easy to see from recent posts, I was challenged to
> present a URL, or other authoritative source to what I was saying. I
> answered the question, but it is apparently not proper for me to ask the
> same of the two proponents of the other theory. And yes, the differences in
> perspective are quite evident.
>
> > I will state categorically that this model proposed by myself and JD is
> >highly grounded in a scientific approach and thoroughly embodies well
> >established physical principles.
>
> As is, and does, the theory the three of us propose.
>
> > This thread, was taken up by me, at
> >least, in reponse to numerous posts indicating flexion at the bridge as being
> >the principal driver of soundboard motion and subsequent conclusions being
> >predicated upon this notion, something I think is plainly incorrect. I have
> >suggested trying a particular test and asked for comments pertaining to the
> >behavior of a soundboard when a tuning fork is set in vibration while being
> >attached to it by a slack wire, J.D. suggests the use of a six foot rod.
> >This appears to not worth the trouble by the proponents of your point of view.
>
> I see no purpose to it. The fork will move the wire, slack or otherwise,
> and the moving wire or rod will move the soundboard - producing a faint
> sound, as you indicated. I don't think the handle of the fork is moving as
> a result of an internal stress wave any more than I think the bridge and
> soundboard are. So this test proves what?
>
> > To avoid the tedium of repetition
> >then I say we should simply acknowledge that we disagree on these points.
>
> Excellent suggestion. Consider it acknowledged.
>
> Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC