Yes, but I think this misses the distinction between the purely scientific ("sound is vibration") and the perceptual, even metaphysical the deeper one digs ("vibration is sound/music because we hear it"). In the discussion of whether the soundboard is a transducer, the former matters, the latter does not.
I'm at the point where I think I understand why some say the soundboard is a transducer. As you explained, the vibration is "changed from a large amplitude vibration of a small area (string) into a large area small amplitude movement of the air over the soundboard." But I'm not sure I agree it should be called a transducer - it is still just vibrations to vibrations. Oh, well.
With an open mind,
Greg Soule
--
(sent from webmail)
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Don Mannino" <DMannino at kawaius.com>
>
> Greg Soule wrote:
> >I am not an acoustician, but I think it is incorrect to consider
> >sound and vibration as two different types of energy.
> >Sound IS vibration.
>
> Yes, but vibration is not sound until we can hear it. That's what the
> soundboard is needed for - to make it audible.
>
> Don Mannino
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC