Soundboard Thoughts (Kind of long)

[Oleg Isaac]

Hello,

Does the latex (resin ?) in the wood , hardening with time, have an
important action on the waves travel, and so, on the sounboard
efficiency ? 

I've read that , may be in Wolfenden.

Thanks and have a nice day.

(p.s. Del did you do some checks on the Harmonicity ?)

Isaac OLEG

Delwin D Fandrich wrote:
> 
> Stephen Birkett wrote:
> 
> > > ... We say we want the piano to "sound like it
> > > did when it was new." The trouble with all of this lovely sentiment is --
> > > we don't have a clue as to what it sounded like when it was new. None of
> > > us were there when that piano rolled of the assembly line. And even if we
> > > had been, our tone memory is simply not that good or that consistent.
> > >
> > We don't have to have been there to deduce the original character of
> > something...otherwise history would be relegated to fiction, and no-one
> > would study anything but current events. It doesn't take the deductive
> > powers of a Sherlock Holmes to distinguish between:
> >
> > 1. Board A is deteriorated and consequently the piano it's in is not
> > sounding its best. Fix it, replace it, whatever it takes....subject to
> > historical artifact considerations. We've been through, and are apparently
> > going through again with Marilyn Monroe, the techniques ad infinitum on
> > the list.
> > VS
> > 2. Board B is in perfect condition and, notwithstanding other
> > considerations, ephermera that need replacing, the piano is presumably
> > sounding as it did when new (more of less).
> >
> > The debate is really whether case 2. occurs. As far as historical pianos
> > it most certainly does, whether or not it can be verified by time
> > machine. Recognition of case 2. is simply possible by eliminating case 1.
> >
> > Del's theory on the inevitability of case 1. (like the end of the world),
> > no matter how cleverly concealed, brings us back to that arrheodictic vs
> > rheodictic debate. But in fact that is really irrelevant. Even if wood
> > *is* rheodictic, i.e. continues linear creep strain under finite load over
> > infinite time...observation of historical artifacts and structures (again)
> > implies time dependent creep strain is insignificant over human time
> > scales (which is all that really matters). Of course, that applies to
> > loads that don't cause failure within a short period of time (2, 3 maybe 10
> > years?....as any good design will satisfy.
> >
> > Stephen
> 
> -------------------------------
> 
> As I've said before, what constitutes good design in one case does not necessarily constitute good design in a completely
> different situation. Both design and process must be appropriate to their situation.
> 
> Del