Hi Dale see a quick comment below: Ric writes: I am kind of skeptical to using phrases like "cellular destruction" myself... not because there is anything inherently untruthfully about the phrase... but because it conveys a sense of the wood being rendered totally useless as a soundboard... which clearly is not the case. Dale contributes back : Some panels which have survived really well perhaps not but, When doing restorative work Udo was removing the badly damaged & cellularly destroyed wood & then machining a new joint & then gluing the panel back together. Kind a like removing dry rot. I'd do the same protocol if called upon Ric... A split panel caused by compression ridging due to climate & bearing pressure is what it is because it has at least in some locations exceeded the elastic limit of the wood. Now come on Ric. Dont misunderstand me Dale... one does indeed recognize toast for toast as it were :) Heck I opted exactly for that in this Bluthner because the old panel was so brittle. No doubt could have forced the issue of reusing it... but it would have been a shadow of its original self... I dont see the point.... tho I do know many who insist that exactly that <<shadow>> IS the point of really old instruments. Ok I see the reasoning... can go down the road with them a bit... but in the end only a couple hundred meters before seeing all the other neat roads out their that are also nicely paved. My point is these phrases being used are ofte times used in sweeping generalizations about olde wood in just as indiscriminant a fashion as some olde wood fans out of hand declare olde wood to be superiour. Neither position is really viable in my view. A piece of wood is what it is at any given time. At some point it becomes truly useless as a soundboard.. and compression damage is admitedly a big issue. Its just that its not the 100 years or so alone that does it either way. As we agree... if a panel is treated well with respect to climate.... it can last surprisingly long. Perhaps longer then many of us want to admit. Dale continues: I haven't read all these myriad of post but one essential element is being grossly over looked & that is the Rebuilders interest in designing a sound board with a varity of tonal envelopes such a what was heard in Rochester. Cheers back at Ya I haven't forgotten Rochester being one of those who initially voiced the idea on pianotech. And I'm on record gawd knows how many times with loads and loads of positive comments for all the pianos there. In particular I thought Ron Overs work was pure wonder. Not only a pearl among pianosound... but such attention to detail in workmanship. Rare quality throughout. I would have wished for a couple more of them to be used in concert along with Ron N's... which I also was impressed with and found quite a bit of tonal similarities with the Overs instrument... particularly in the treble range. But really... all the instruments showed there are some excellent craftsmen out there who know their trade well enough to try less trodden roads and do so knowledgeably and successfully. Thats the important bit to me. I would be just as impressed with someone who in like fashion crafted an instrument with old wood.... with that same determinant and knowledgeable base. Grin.. you folks will never shake me when it comes to my standpoint on holding subjective preference and objective perspective in clearly separate arenas. Sorry bout that... but its part of my view of existence... cant really do much about that I'm afraid. The concept of an <<objectively better preference>> which I was presented with a while back.... is just not something I can recognize as anything but two separate and mutually exclusive concepts plastered together to form a rather amusing piece of gibberish. Cheers... Nice post btw Dale ! RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC