Hi, Danny -- I really have no idea at all what would happen. I just think about the sort of sound in the high treble that I don't like: tense, grainy, pinched, no singing quality. Ironically, if I slack off the strings (or if I'm putting on a new string) it sounds better at a lower pitch. Less punchy, but more singing and actually louder, with longer sustain. Maybe I simply prefer a lower tension scale. Still, I imagine how the board is _feeling_ to make sounds like that, and I think it's feeling pinched. So I start to wonder what would unpinch it. I also see a tiny short string with a great huge bridge and fat, thick board to drive, Like having a violin top that is a half-inch thick. I was really interested awhile back when someone described pianos that Nanette Stein was building way back when, with slanting soundboards, so that the high treble bridges could be shorter and narrower. I wonder how that sounded? I had actually wondered if a separate soundboard at a higher level closer to the strings would work for the high treble, and (yes!) I had thought of slanting the soundboard to reduce the size of the bridge. You can understand how exciting it was to hear that Nanette had done that exact same thing!! I view a lot of this from a string-player's viewpoint. A violin has a thinner top and a lighter bridge than a cello, and it's louder. I remember in school (junior high school, with awful public school instruments) that there were the cruddy plywood cellos, with a heavy thick shiny varnish all over them. The tone was terrible, nasal, weak, ugly. Then there was one old relic, also very very cheap, that had a very thin top and sides, and minimal varnish. It was kind of broken up, but the sound was huge in comparison, if a little brash. I always chose it. I suggested trying to shave down and fiddle with ribs on pianos about to get new soundboards because you can't possibly find a cheaper source of information, or a way of working that could free your imagination as well, by eliminating your fear of doing damage. If the sound improved even on those old, clapped out soundboards, wouldn't that be _very_ suggestive? Also, André Oorebeek's recent posts about replacing ribs and not the board, which apparently is a frequent practice in Europe, suggested that it would be possible to try different rib attachments with the rest of the piano still intact. I asked him (privately) how on earth they removed the old ribs, and he said they just planed them down to the soundboard. What could be simpler? One could even plane them down and then put new thin and/or asymmetric ones in different places than the originals. Whatever Mason & Hamlin did should be studied and tried and cherished. I like the tone of old M&H best of all. And, yes, _adding_ weight and support to one side as well as subtracting it from the other would definitely be interesting to do. Has anyone ever done it? (I LOVE this thread!) Susan ---------------------------------------------------- At 11:52 PM 12/8/97 -0600, you wrote: >Susan, > >Wouldn't this sort of work as the inverse of weighting soundboards? I've never >heard a plausable explanation of why the lead weights work, but I've heard 1 or 2 >well placed weights add 6 or 7 seconds to bass sustain while damping out >unpleasant overtones. > >Danny Moore >Houston Chapter > >Susan Kline wrote: > >> use a router and/or plane to thin one side, with the strings still on >> and at pitch. Possibly they could add mass to the other side as well, by >> gluing or clamping something to those ribs. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Kline P.O. Box 1651 Philomath, OR 97370 skline@proaxis.com "With a little more courage, I could get myself into a lot more trouble." -- Ashleigh Brilliant
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC