Hi David I do not believe I said this was better then any other method. I did mention the ability to seperate concerns of mass and stiffness. As far as overstressing the panel is concerned, (I suppose you are refering to the compression crowning discussion) I simply do not recognize the validity of many of the claims made on this list in that regard and hence do not see any definition of <<overstressing the panel>> in that context that needs to be worried about. And it seems a very large proportion of the piano manufacturing industry is in aggreement on that point. On the contrary, it seems more and more apparent to me that compression soundboards do indeed create a different sound that can not be achieved otherwise. One can use opposing magnets to strengthen any area of a compression panel one wants, or one can simply create an essentially rib crowned panel that allows more freedom relative to mass and stiffness concerns. Or... one can get all creative and see what else one can come up with. A few weeks back on a beater I have experimented with I changed both the pitch and increased sustain characteristics in the mid treble area just by alligning three such magnet pairs so that they were seperated by a 5 mm gap. Turning them up to 3 mm gap further raised pitch but seemed to thin out the sound a bit despite relatively long sustain. It seems to me there is lots of room for experimentation along these lines. Cheers RicB David Love wrote: Why would this be better than simply creating a rib crowned and supported panel that can be compressed to the requisite stiffness through the use of downbearing without overstressing the panel? David Love
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC