Hi Mike, stuff interspersed.. >Hi Ron, > Don't get me wrong, I only wonder if there aren't some myths >concerning the merits of new soundboards, and i don't pretend to know >what they might be. * Well, it is a fact that a new soundboard isn't necessarily a better sounding soundboard just like it's a fact that a new action doesn't necessarily work better than the old action. Just replacing parts with other parts that sort of look like the old parts doesn't mean we did good unless we understand how the thing works in the first place. It is also a fact that brand new, right out of the factory pianos with high prices and revered names have soundboards that aren't adequately functional. This happens a whole lot more than you may be aware of. The designers and installers do have to know what they're doing. Since some of these pianos with revered names have been using the same designs for the last hundred years, I expect they had the same problems then as they do now, and for exactly the same reasons. The rebuilder that meticulously duplicates the old soundboard, using the traditional assembly methods, is duplicating the mistakes and inefficiencies of the old designs. >Occasionally old boards sound darn good when >restrung and given a new action. I can even think of one with no >visible crown and very minimal to 0 bearing which sounds good. Some >restrung twenty years ago with the original board still sound good, >(granted most don't). * We've all heard old boards that sound better than they should. The "most don't" is where it's at here. Everyone gets lucky once in a while. >Who replaces a soundboard without replacing >everything else too? So are we sure it's really the boards? * I think the "most don't" above, with the old boards and new everything else should help narrow it down. We have to account for as much of the available evidence as possible with ideas like this, rather than using the exception to support any particular view. Del has done (will do?) a class on voicing the soundboard, or rather, separating hammer caused tone problems from soundboard caused ones. I haven't seen his (yet, but I will if I get the chance), but I'm going to try a sort of mini version of something like this in the technical work skills class in KC this year. I hope we can hear. >I just >found the prices interesting since so many in the guild hold that the >40+ boards should generally be killed. Apparently somebody values them. * Not necessarily. There is an effective ceiling price on any particular piano in any particular part of the country. If a rebuilt piano with the old soundboard will bring that ceiling price, replacing the board would only mean that the tech is losing money, because he won't be able to go high enough over what the local market will bear to recoup the cost of board installation. The less money and labor you have in a rebuilt piano, the higher your profit margin. The customers don't know soundboards from plates, for the most part, so they're going on the brand name, the name of the seller, the price, the generic designation "rebuilt", the furniture, and maybe the sound. Under these conditions, the only one who values the old board is the rebuilder. A rebuilder who customarily replaces soundboards, and produces rebuilt pianos of consistently (possibly dramatically) superior sound will attract a different kind of customer who will likely be willing to pay over the local ceiling rate for a better sounding instrument. Like I said, you have to consider as much of the evidence as you can. > One thought, the ruling grade in a concert grands' quality is the >killer octave. On shorter pianos like S&S Os and Bald Ls the bass could >well be the ruling grade. * That does seem to be the case. They seem willing to ignore anything the killer octave (doesn't) have to offer while raving about the bass. I've heard it lots of times. >Isn't it true that bass tone improves when >the board loses some crown and grows tired? Makes me wonder if the new >boards are so manditory in the less than seven footers. * I've never heard that one, but let's look at it. Logically, when the crown of a compression crowned board lowers with cumulative compression set, the impedance would lower too. This should make the bass louder, and you probably wouldn't notice any shortened sustain because of the string mass involved. At the same time, though, the impedance of the low tenor area (being roughly the same area of the SB as the low bass) would drop below what the strings need and the tenor would get tubby sounding. The same thing would happen in the killer octave, only the frequencies are higher, and the string mass is lower, and the shortened sustain is very evident. This sounds a lot like what you find in old pianos with tired boards, doesn't it? Makes me more convinced than ever that new boards should be mandatory in anything at all worth rebuilding in the first place. Not that It will happen. >-Mike >careful now, I'll be 40 this year! * Uh oh, WARRANTY ALERT - WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP - DIVE - DIVE. Um... how's your soundboard holding up? Just a harmless belly question. %-) Break's over, back to work.(dive, dive) Ron
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC