---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Farrell wrote: > Is it not the case that with an older American piano with an original soundboard - which presumably originally functioned reasonably well with a relatively soft hammer (such as a Steinway) - may function well with a relatively soft hammer such as a Steinway, Rosen, or Isaac if the soundboard is surprisingly well preserved, but may function better with a more firm hammer such as an Abel or Renner if the soundboard is not working quite as efficiently as it had originally? I would imagine this depended somewhat upon the nature of the reduced functionality / efficiency. Anyways... even if you have a board that simply has flattened a bit... perfectly or optimally symetric.... only lost some of its << ummmfff >> as it were... I doubt that driving the thing with harder hammers / more energy / etc.... would be the answer. More likely (it would seem to me) it would probably be more important to use soft hammers and accept a lower sound pressure level. You can get some really nice round mellow sounds out of some of these old panels... that despite claims by our SB engineers to the contrary, I doubt can be achieved by anyother process then the ageing process that soundboard panels experience. > In other words, optimal results might be in matching new hammer hardness to soundboard condition? And hence, a remarkably well preserved 1920s A3 may perform well with a set of Steinway hammers, whereas one may find that old B, that arguably should have been upgraded with a new soundboard, might do best with something more firm? One of the things we hear a lot over here is that rebuilders should automatically increase downbearing... on any panel where the plate has been removed. The idea is that the panel has flattened a bit , and so it needs more downwards pressure to compensate. This strikes me as a similiar perspective to what you outline. If the panel is less effective... then it is, and trying to fix it by increasing the effectiveness of another function of the system will probably increase any mismatch (impedance or otherwise) that has already begun to develope on its own. I find that actually lessening downbearing very slightly on such panels yeilds very good results, I nearly always end up voicing them quiter and rounder. They end up sounding mellow and quiet... with out any real degree of that nasal thinned out sound you often find on old shot pianos. > And I would suppose also, that one would have to stir personal preference into this whole mix as well! No doubt... no doubt... :) > > > Full of Speculation, But Lacking Substantiated Facts and/or Experience, Welcome to the club ! But it seems to me you do as well as any of us :) > > Terry Farrell > -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/9f/01/a0/ae/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC