No downbearing ?

[Ron Nossaman]

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment

>Look at all the old American uprights you want, but you'll only find a few 
>with soundboards that were designed to have a crown and hence downbearing

There are indeed precious few with good crown and bearing, but what makes 
you think they were designed that way? Or has Grandma had those gnarly 
hands and varicose veins all her life just because she does now?


>& Many of them sound very nice.

And many of them don't sound anywhere near nice. Nice compared to what, a 
fifty year old Poole spinet? In my opinion, it's more a double standard of 
not holding them to similar standards of sound production as grands that 
makes these old uprights sound good. As in : very nice... considering... 
and better than I expected.


>In my mind the upright soundboard is more of a mass driven system. I.e. 
>long strings and big soundboards. These boards are tapered, thicker at the 
>top in the treble & gradually thin down to about 1/4" near the bass/ 
>bottom end for flexibility.

If it's a mass driven system, why the attention to flexibility differences 
between the bass and treble? Where's the mass component that's any 
different from grands?


>     I recently put bridge caps on one of the first Baldwin Uprights 
> (1880) ever built. (Gorgeous looking & sounding) The board was flat as a 
> pancake. I shimmed hairline cracks and then applied scraped off the old 
> varnish and epoxy finish treatment to the front of the board. This is an 
> amazing sounding piano. I really think that the hardness of the epoxy 
> finish is also a contributing tonal factor.
>    Food for the new year.
>    Dale Erwin

Not very filling. Again, stiffening the board with epoxy "contributed to 
the tonal factor", but it's still somehow a mass driven system that was 
designed to be without crown or bearing. I'd like a little gravy with these 
grits please.

Ron N

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment--