I should have said 'amplitude of the partials'. We are not talking about sound at this stage. On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Keith Roberts <keithspiano at gmail.com>wrote: > You modify the vibration in the wire by changing the shape of the hammer > and the spring chariteristics of the hammer. This imparts a different wave > and nodal pattern which alters the volume of the partials. > Keith Roberts > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Chris Solliday <csolliday at rcn.com>wrote: > >> Ben Sloane, >> That's Dr. Sanderson and Verituner. What's the point of being such a >> little snot on this list? Don't you have some work to do? >> Chris Solliday rpt >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Sloane, Benjamin (sloaneba) <sloaneba at ucmail.uc.edu> >> *To:* 'caut at ptg.org' >> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:40 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [CAUT] Semantics >> >> “This is not amplified sound; there was no original sound to be >> amplified, only the mechanical energy stored in the vibrating string.” >> >> >> >> What I don’t understand about this excerpt is this. If what I do has >> nothing to do with sound, and everything to do with a vibrating string, then >> why are so many piano technicians deciding they need to consolidate all >> their energies to modifying sound, and leaving modifying string tension for >> correct string vibration to some guys named Sanderson, Reyburn, Dr. >> Verituner, Sir Tunelab, and their apologist, Baldassin? >> >> >> >> Furthermore, how do we consider those who leave modifying string >> vibrations to others, assuming this is all about string vibration, and not >> sound, good piano technicians at all in light of this conviction? >> >> >> >> *From:* caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] *On Behalf Of >> *Delwin D Fandrich >> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:10 PM >> *To:* caut at ptg.org >> *Subject:* Re: [CAUT] Semantics >> >> >> >> >> | To me, the transducer argument *de-couples* the strings and >> | the soundboard--(by doing this "transducing," taking one >> | thing and making it another). That goes against everything >> | I've read about piano acoustics. >> >> This would rather depend on what you are reading. >> >> To be sure, Wm Braid White wrote eloquently, if some what confusingly, >> about the *power of resonance*, that mysterious property he found in >> certain materials—namely spruce—to *amplify* the *sonorous quality* of >> the strings. Thus he was able to state that “more resonating power is >> required for the relatively weaker treble strings than for the relatively >> stronger bass strings.” In this way he was able to explain why piano >> builders had found it necessary to make their soundboard panels thicker in >> the treble area and thinner in the bass area. In 1909 White did not yet have >> to contend with the so-called “Diaphragmatic" soundboard. >> >> But that was then and this is now. So far as I know there is no modern >> writer who speaks of the piano soundboard system as an amplifier. In the >> *Five Lectures* series, Klaus Wogram writes, “The soundboard transforms >> the mechanical vibrations into radiated sound.” Benade (*Fundamentals of >> Musical Acoustics*) discusses the soundboard as a "two-dimensional driven >> plate." This plate, by means of forced vibration (the stored mechanical >> energy of the strings) creates *sound* (acoustical energy) by means of >> the resulting physical motion. For Fletcher & Rossing (*The Physics of >> Musical Instruments*) it is described thus: “Acoustically, the soundboard >> is the main radiating member in the instrument, transforming some of the >> mechanical energy of the strings and bridges into acoustical energy.” >> >> It might be helpful to try a little experiment. Locate a thin piece of >> wood several inches wide and a few inches long. Now locate a small hammer. >> With the thin—and so far silent—wood panel in one hand tap its surface with >> the hammer. Sound (acoustical energy) is created when the hammer strikes >> (mechanical energy) the wood panel. It is an impulse sound, of course, and >> it dies out very quickly but if you could make your hammer strikes fast >> enough (vibrating mechanical energy) the resulting sound would become a tone >> (continuous acoustical energy). >> >> By striking the piece of wood with the hammer you created sound, or >> acoustical energy. It wasn’t free—you had to invest mechanical energy to get >> it—but that acoustical energy was not amplified from anything. It was >> created. Now picture the soundboard bridge being struck repeatedly and >> rapidly by a series of tiny hammer blows (the vibrating string) and picture >> the soundboard responding to those blows by slight movements. Because of its >> large size the soundboard will create sound—acoustical energy. This is not >> amplified sound; there was no original sound to be amplified, only the >> mechanical energy stored in the vibrating string. (And let’s not quibble >> over the minute amount of sound created by the vibrating string(s). This is >> completely overwhelmed by the wash of acoustical energy coming from the >> soundboard.) >> >> Semantically we could, I suppose, quibble over whether the piano >> soundboard system should be called a *transformer*—“…a thing which >> transforms something”—or a *transducer*—"a device for converting >> variations in one physical quantity, as pressure, brightness, etc., >> quantitatively into variations in another, as voltage, position, etc.” (Both >> from the *OED*) What we cannot do, at least not if we want our language >> to meet even minimal standards of technical accuracy, is call the piano >> soundboard system an amplifier. Over the past century our understanding of >> how the piano works has evolved considerably as has the language used to >> describe and discuss it. >> >> Words and their meanings in a technical community—and both CAUT and >> PianoTech are technical communities—are important. They convey certain >> defined technical meanings to the participants. These are not casual >> discussions over the Sunday barbecue with Aunt Matilda. To misuse technical >> words or to apply one's own meanings to them—even if that usage was in vogue >> a hundred years ago—can only mislead and confuse the reader or participant. >> >> ddf >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20090514/0198f484/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC