Crown in Bass Area & Downbearing

[Farrell]

Why?

Terry Farrell

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net>
To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: Crown in Bass Area & Downbearing


> Although what I meant was that longer backscale will require a greater
> angular measurement.
>
> David Love
> davidlovepianos@earthlink.net
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Farrell <mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com>
> > To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
> > Date: 5/13/2004 3:40:23 AM
> > Subject: Re: Crown in Bass Area & Downbearing
> >
> > I should probably backtrack somewhat on my statement of "very little
crown
> > in the bass" - but only somewhat. I think many designs will have ribs in
> the
> > bass area that are cut to a 60-foot radius (some even larger). That to
me
> is
> > little crown. Some soundboards are made from flat ribs and it seems it
> does
> > not take too terribly long on some of these to get flat-ish. These are
> > definitely little (or no, or negative) crown. Regarding downbearing on
the
> > bass, I am aware that some reputable folks building and installing new
> > soundboards just have bass strings kiss the bass bridge top - zero
> > downbearing - regardless of backscale length. Apparently, they find that
> > works to their satisfaction with the design of their soundboards.
> >
> > As David points out, the expression of downbearing as a unit of length
not
> > only lacks clarity, it is meaningless without a backscale length
> > specification. I wish downbearing was commonly characterized with an
> angular
> > measurement - or better yet, two angular measurements - bridge front and
> > back downbearings.
> >
> > Terry Farrell
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net>
> > To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:59 PM
> > Subject: RE: Crown in Bass Area & Downbearing
> >
> >
> > > The amount of downbearing in the bass should, as I understand it,
depend
> > on
> > > the backscale length.  The greater the backscale length, the more
> > > downbearing is not only tolerated but needed in the bass area.  A next
> to
> > > zero downbearing would probably be advisable where the backscale is
> > > extremely short.
> > >
> > > David Love
> > > davidlovepianos@earthlink.net
> >
> >
> > >But many designs incorporate very little crown in the bass and zero or
> > >nearly so bearing on the bass bridge. So how could you tell that such
> > >characteristics were a problem (at least in terms of deviation from
> > original
> > >design)?
> > >
> > >Terry Farrell
> >
> >
> > > Regarding bass crown, I'm not sure how much is design intent, and how
> much
> > > is the result of the cantilever under positive bearing destroying what
> > > crown was there. I tend toward the notion that the crown was
originally
> > > there, designed or not, and the cantilever killed it - if it is indeed
> no
> > > longer there. The downbearing would ideally be dependent on the length
> of
> > > the back scale, like David Love said. I consider zero crown and zero
> > > bearing to be a problem in a piano with a conventional soundboard,
> > anywhere
> > > in the scale.
> > >
> > > Ron N
> >
> >
> > > > Terry said: "But many designs incorporate very little crown in the
> bass
> > > and
> > > > zero or
> > > > nearly so bearing on the bass bridge...."
> > > >
> > > > Terry,
> > > > Where did you get such an idea. It's simply not true!
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Joe Garrett, RPT, (Oregon)
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>