Soundboard re-engineering priorities

[BobDavis88@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Dear particularly Ron N., Ron O., and Del (The RonDels? Papa Del Ron Ron?)

I've been following the soundboard discussions with great interest. While 
many improvements have been suggested, and are actually being implemented by 
a few, a great difficulty crops up for the less-experienced installer in 
making the transition from copying boards to re-engineering bellies.

I would love to toss a re-designed rib layout, crowned ribs, third bridge, 
multi-ply bridge cap, different bass bridge placement for longer backscale, 
floating perimeter, new string scale etc., at the model A which is now 
sitting in the shop awaiting a board. However, it would obviously be reckless 
and uncontrolled to implement all these changes at once, as I would not learn 
the effect of each change, and a real risk is present of winding up with a 
piano which doesn't have the sound people associate, for better or worse, 
with the marque. 

One really needs to START with 50 installations under his belt, to try out 
parameter changes one at a time and throw them all away. However, since this 
is impossible, it would be nice to have guidance on the order of precedence. 
Rather than throwing fifty experimental boards at one piano, I'm going to 
have to make small changes in the next fifty pianos. I am willing to accept 
that they may not be their ultimate.

I for one am a big fan of the Steinway sound at its best. If they all sounded 
like the best ones, and the tone lasted like the most durable, I would be 
happy, and most of my customers would too. Small order, hunh? It seems to me 
that the biggest problems in Steinways are 1) longevity due to crown 
collapse, 2) weakness in the lower treble and sometimes upper treble and 3) 
resonance peaks in those areas, specifically at F5 and E7 (I wish the notes 
around E7 were as powerful). I can live with the bottom half of the piano at 
this point, except for the crossover on some (most) models. I'm handling that 
temporarily with wound strings.

I have previously used crowned ribs, glued on in a bellied press, in a 
moderate EMC environment, and they sound good and should presumably last 
longer. I have (for now!) four specific questions: 

1) Is there some small change to try next, to improve the treble sustain and 
projection, without changing the rib layout, or making a new bridge root?

2) I thought the general deal was that stiffer=softer tone/longer sustain and 
less stiff=louder, more abrupt. We recently strung a Chickering 109C, the 
treble of which had both weak output AND a very short sustain in the top 
section. The scale lengths and sizes looked normal. Whassup? Too much mass?

3) A third bridge obviously goes on a different spot on the soundboard, with 
different impedance, and loudness, characteristics from the hockey-stick area 
of the tenor bridge it replaces. How does one figure that difference into the 
string scale the FIRST time? And would you leave the hockey stick area or cut 
it away?

4) What difference do you think the grain angle to the belly rail makes?

Thanks,
Bob Davis

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/33/ca/66/53/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--