John Delacour wrote: > At 10:19 AM +0100 1/16/02, Richard Brekne wrote: > > >yes... obvious that the two camps are operating with different > >concepts of motion. > > I think Robin and I are using 'motion' in precisely the same sense as > the ripple theorists in almost every case. You will remember that I > asked Ron N. to confirm his view, which finally he did. You can > refer to the whole message and others posted at that time. > Well... perhaps... he seems to agree on this point as well. Still something doesn't add up here... > > > > > >What is important is that readers participants get stimulated to > >increase their > >knowledge by reading, and experimentation, and thoughtfull reflection. > >Yet again... I ask you and others... why should we be concerned to > >do so in this > >particular instance .... What ramifications for design issues can > >either perspective have that are in conflict with the other ? > > More than you imagine, I think you will discover. For example it > would help to know how a soundboard works in order to know what wood > to use, whether fir or orange boxes; whether to butt the deals > together or to use finger joints; whether to lay the varnish on thick > or thin, hard or soft. I can give you more than intuitive answers to > any of these questions, but first I want to get the foundations laid > by continuing my reply to Phil of last night. Yes... perhaps you missed my point ? How do decisions relating to these examples you give change dependent on whether one adheres to the diaphragm school of thinking or your own. From other threads I get the impression that by and large both camps would end up making a lot of the same kinds of design issue choices. Is this in error ? > > > The fact is that, hidden among all the noise of the messages on this > topic, a great deal of information and a good number of examples have > been given, which ought to leave you in no doubt by now that we are > on the right track. It is very frustrating continually having to go > back to square one and repeat stuff. An awful lot of information, ideas and thinking has been presented. As far as the frustration part.....well thats list life. The written word in cyberspace..... what a beast. > If what I have written so far in that reply is in any way unclear or > unscientific, you must let me know so that I can make it clearer. Oh no problem there..grin.... my trademark as it were... You talk about how you get frustrated... I am sure I drive a few folks absolutely bonkers with my requests for further clarification. But most of them are kind enough to put up with me and help me struggle through it all. We each learn in our own way don't you know. > > In the meantime, please tell me Richard, why Sitka spruce is so > highly regarded as a sounboard wood and why Douglas fir would not be > better. Well,,, this is an area I know waaayyy to little about. The usual answer from someone like me would have to be something about sitka being recognized has having the most ideal stiffness to mass relationship, and perhaps something about the elasticity of the material... though I am not yet quite comfortable with my perception of that last concept yet. You wrote a post a while back about some of the history of Steinway boards I wanted to find again before writing these words. But I decided to just write straight out as it best represents how much I know of such matters. When you first ask though... I suppose Douglas fir could be used if it comes right down to it.. though I have no idea of how detrimental I should expect the use of said should be to the overall sound. I saw a mahogany sound board once long time ago... really .... round and depths sound... actually sounded pretty good I thought. > > JD -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC