my own Soundboard

[Farrell]

> I won't go into
> thicknessing technique for a big panel by hand planing, unless someone is
interested -
> but it doesn't really take all that long to do and it's not hard.

You bet I am interested! That is just what I am looking for: a good
professional method that does not require a big machine $ outlay. I have
planed a bit - but usually on the edge of boards. Although I do plane my
soundboard shims. I really have no experience hand planing a large flat
surface to thickness. I would love to hear of your technique. It sounds like
it would be right up the alley for someone like me. Thanks.

Terry Farrell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Birkett" <birketts@wright.aps.uoguelph.ca>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: my own Soundboard


> Terry wrote:
> > Am I on to a simple workable solution here? Or am I just treading water
=
> > before I sink?
> > How do others in the "one or two soundboards a year" shop do it? Thanks.
>
> With all this talk about monster macho sanding machinges, Terry, I'd step
back a moment
> and think about things. Why do you (or any one else for that matter) think
a better
> soundboard will result? Is it because you think a better surface will be
obtained? or
> is it just quicker? or is it just easier to sand a board and requires less
practical
> skill? or is the "perfectly even thickness" from a machine desirable? or
is it because
> you think a better board will result from following semi-industrial
practice as closely
> as possible? I would question any of that reasoning.
>
> You will always get a cleaner surface by hand planing rather than sanding,
no matter
> what kind of sander you use - b i g machine or hand method. Planing cuts
fibres,
> severing them, while sanding compresses them. A "fuzzines" level is
unavoidable from
> sanding. PLaning leaves a surface that shimmers, but only if no sanding
has been used
> on it previously.
>
> Planing technique is not difficult to acquire, and there is little $
outlay involved.
> I can understand a production shop, perhaps, justifying the use of a big
machine for
> boards, but that rationalization of the machine purchase does not apply to
even a
> semi-production shop, let alone an individual making a few boards per year
in a small
> shop. I can plane a board in the time it would take you to truck yours to
a shop with a
> big sander - it doesn't take long with the right tools, and a well-tuned
plane.
>
> Once you have your panel glued up you surface one side, generally the one
which will be
> visible. After you've gone over to flatten with a smoothing plane you need
to clean the
> surface. For softwoods, including Sitka, avoid scrapers which generally
only work on
> hardwoods. Get a good block plane (Record will do and inexpensive), fit it
with a thick
> Hock blade, set the mouth _real_ tight and you can clean pretty much any
surface.
> (European fir, which I'm using for the current soundboard, is stringier
than anything
> Sitka has to offer, and the block plane works fine).
>
> Now you flip it and tackle the thicknessing. Given the design is an
evenly-thick board
> with tapered edge, you obviously have to aim first for even-thickness. Now
you have to
> keep some perspective on this - there is "even" and "even", but there is
nothing magic
> about achieving the same thickness to a fraction of a mm. It's not a
metal-working shop
> project where things are measured to thous. And for that matter
(soundboard thread
> notwithstanding) this evenness spec is an arbitrary factor that has more
basis in human
> perception than in anyhting to do with the way soundboard actually work.
If a machine
> gives you something "perfectly even" automatically then so-be-it, but if a
different
> working practice naturally gives a more relazed tolerance then that too is
fine. No need
> to fight to get machine-like tolerances when it doesn't matter anyway. I
won't go into
> thicknessing technique for a big panel by hand planing, unless someone is
interested -
> but it doesn't really take all that long to do and it's not hard.
>
> And on one other point it's interesting that Sitka is now considered _the_
wood for
> soundboards, although most makers of historical instruments tend to avoid
it like the
> plague. And the use of Sitka really came to be simply because the
convenient Eastern
> spruce stocks were used up, so they looked to the lefthand side for
lumber, although
> Eastern spruce stocks have recovered since the early 20th century now to
some extent.
> There are arbitary "quality" issues previously discussed here (easthetic,
not acoustic)
> - remember my orange crate stock soundboard?  Playing devil's advocate,
though, I would
> suggest that you can pretty much make a decent board out of _any_ wood by
modifying
> design parameters to accomodate...but that is treading into the territory
of the "big
> soundboard thread"....
>
> Stephen
>
> Stephen Birkett Fortepianos
> Authentic Reproductions of 18th and 19th Century Pianos
> 464 Winchester Drive
> Waterloo, Ontario
> Canada N2T 1K5
> tel: 519-885-2228
> mailto: birketts@wright.aps.uoguelph.ca
>