Soundboard mass

[Ron Nossaman]

> In view of this it is interesting that one almost always finds bridges on
> older Steinways that diminish in height through the capo sections.  The
> bridge in question was on the order of 27 mm through the treble and I've
> certainly seen them drop well below that by the time they get to C88.  While
> I understand the effect of an increase in height of the bridge on overall
> stiffness, I suppose I'm wondering whether a better protocol for working
> with older and tired soundboards that aren't quite ready for the scrap heap
> might not be to simply recap the bridge complete adding, in similar cases,
> 7-8 mm.  One may need to add some thickness to the new pinblock and raise
> the plate a bit and, of course, it would change the hammer bore, but I'm
> trying to think of a downside.  Even in the case of the dampers, I'm often
> replacing the old underlevers with a new Renner one where the wires often
> need to be trimmed.  In this case the extra length would be welcomed.  Any
> thoughts on the downside of this, if any?
> 
> David Love

I've been doing something like this for a while with 
soundboard and bridge replacement. Usually, getting the treble 
string height up more nearly even with the tenor will add 
close to 5mm to the treble bridge height requirement. I 
consider string height, hammer boring, stack height (and 
stretcher clearance), music desk clearance, and how it looks 
in the case. Try to meet everything somewhere in the middle, 
and you likely won't get into trouble. Like most situations, 
it's the thing(s) you didn't consider that bite you.
Ron N