> >My own degree of understanding of these matters still remains at a >rather young stage, yet one theme comes back again and again in >these discussions. That is that the sound that the panel is able to >project is dependent upon its stiffness and mass. Certainly any >particular combination of these is in itself independent of string >coupling. John Hartman is correct in saying that down bearing can >increase the stiffness of the panel without added to the panels >mass... tho the strings have mass to... and these things have a >habit of working both ways in some sense or another... Still >essentially John is correct.......... > > >The question remains then can good sound result without any >particular amount of down bearing. It seems clear to me at any rate >that the answer to this is not more complicated then asking whether >a soundboard can be made uniformly stiff enough while being >comprised of appropriate levels and placement of mass. If that can >be done without the additional stiffness that down bearing supplies >in traditional piano design... then so be it. And it would appear, >given plenty enough <<oddball >> examples of reverse crown and or >buckling that do not adversely affect sound production that this is >the case. > >On the other hand... the lack of any design that satisfactorily >would exploit this would tend to counter that conclusion. > >Just a few thoughts. >RicB I keep reading posts by various people stating that the soundboard gets 'stiffer' as downbearing is applied. But I have seen no experimental evidence to support this supposition. The only experimental evidence that I have seen was that presented by Ron Overs some time back in which he took a crowned ribbed panel, loaded it incrementally, and noted the deflections. His data showed just the opposite; that the panel was getting less stiff as the load (simulated 'downbearing' if you will) was increased. If someone has some data to support the phenomenon of increased board stiffness with increasing downbearing then please share it with us. The only support for this position that I have heard has been anectodal stories along the lines of, 'I pushed down on the new board and it deflected, then I leaned on it with all my weight and it wouldn't deflect any more, so it obviously was getting stiffer'. It was reaching a state of equilibrium for the applied load based on the stiffness of the system. That doesn't mean it was getting 'stiffer'. There is a difference between preload and stiffness. As you apply more downbearing load to the board then the preload (or prestress if you prefer) will increase. It's not hard to believe that this could have some affect on the vibrational characteristics of the board and experience tells us that it does. Putting downbearing on the board usually seems to have a beneficial effect. Stiffness is a relationship between load and deflection. If two beams have the same load applied to them, then the one that deflects less is 'stiffer' for a load applied at that particular spot. Increasing stiffness under load would mean that there was incrementally less deflection for unit increases in load. If a beam deflects down 1/10 of an inch for an applied load of 1000 lbs, then if it is getting 'stiffer' under increasing load, when you applied an additional 1000 lbs of load the additional deflection would be less than 1/10 of an inch. I see no reason why a ribbed panel would behave in this way. That's not to say that I can't be wrong and that there's not something about this particular system that I've overlooked or don't understand. But I'd like to see some experimental evidence to prove it. This distinction is important to potential soundboard design. If the important thing is increasing the stiffness without increasing the mass, then an alternative soundboard made of something like honeycomb sandwich might give the desired performance without any downbearing. If the important thing is preload or prestress in the panel then the honeycomb panel might be a waste of time and downbearing would be essential regardless of the type of panel you used. Also, if the board is not getting stiffer as a result of deflection, it raises the question of what function the crown is performing. If the crowned board is not getting stiffer as it deflects down, then a flat board would be just as stiff as a crowned board. So, the reason for the crown would not be 'stiffness'. Phil Ford -- Phillip Ford Piano Service and Restoration 1777 Yosemite Ave - 130 San Francisco, CA 94124
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC