Piano Technician Training reply

[Delwin D Fandrich]

pianoman wrote:

> Hi Jory,
>  . . . .
>     It is said that years ago Kimball hired a piano designer, ( I think it was
> Klaus Fenner) to prove/show that Kimball laminated soundboards were not
> inferior to solid spruce. (This is how I remember it in my faulty brain)
> The idea being that if someone, in their ads would say that laminates are
> inferior to solid spruce that Kimball could sue them.  I attended a class
> given by this fellow and he showed slides on how he conducted his tests to
> prove his point.  He had an unstrung back with no strings and pointed a
> speaker at various points along the bridge and made sand patterns of how
> the board vibrated with both types of boards.  So he proved that the lam.
> board did just as well as the solid spr. bd.  Did he prove it?.  I don't
> think so, because there were no strings on the frames.  In the end, it
> didn't prove a thing as far as the larger picture is concerned.  There are
> some intelligent people who can prove something either way they want and it
> still will not necessarily hold true in the real world.  There is lots to
> be said for feeling, gut feelings, and hunches just as well as scientific
> proof.
> James Grebe

-------------------------------------

James,

While I agree with you that the tests you describe were flawed -- indeed, pretty much
worthless -- so are most of the so-called tests that are published in the various
more-or-less scientific books on the workings of musical instrument.  There is, of
course, another way to test soundboard performance.  That is to actually design the
soundboard and build the piano.  When I say that I believe that pianos can be built
using laminated soundboards that will actually outperform their solid soundboard
counterparts it is because I have built them and compared them against each other.
Not enough of them to scrap all of the solid soundboard production, but enough to know
that, designed properly, the performance is there.

Del