---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
. Hi Terry ,Stephen, Gerg
The one thing that Stepen did not emphasize is the importance of getting
the back of the panel very,VERY flat so there are no voids under your rib
joints that would compromise the glue surface.
The sanding idea you have is fine . It is amazing how much flattening
that can be accomplished with a variety of sanding devices.
Even with finely tuned up low angle plane it is still possible to get some
very ugly tearout. I'm guessing Stephen has more time in on that one than I
do. I'm wondering how he mitigates that.
By the way I experiemented with surfacing some long pieces of spruce(5
to6ft.)
last night. It ain't so easy. I glued 3 pieces together and got one perfect
joint and one with some very small voids. I'm guessing I could get it set up
with more sophistication if I chose. If you wish I'll share the rudimentary
details later.
So tell me again why is it that you and Greg are so determined to spend
thousands of dollars in time and money to make one or two soundboards when
you can order a couple premade panels for 1k and before you learn and refine
the REST of the process? There is so much to juggle.
Don't get me wrong I've explored and been intrigued by the panel making
thing too and came to the conclusion that for me it's more expedient and cost
effective to order premade panels at least at this time.
Best
> Subj:Re: my own Soundboard
> Date:1/18/2002 10:07:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com">mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com</A>
> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> Sent from the Internet
>
>
>
> > 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
> >
>
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/d8/c2/3e/c2/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC