brash failure

[Ron Nossaman]

>       Then compare the flat-top Martin guitar of 1945 with a new one.  It is 
> a solid spruce panel, butt-jointed across a set of ribs, subjected to 
> compression and tension.  

So, whereas, a piano isn't a violin, it's now a guitar? That 
surely has to be better. Not insisting on a description of 
"compression and tension" in this context, why can't a piano 
just be a piano so we can work with that?


>There is nothing in the older spruce that demonstrates 
> deterioration. 

Ignoring what? Compression set is certainly real, and 
demonstrable by measuring negative crown in the killer octave 
of compression crowned soundboards, never mind the resulting 
tonal problems there. Then there's cracks. I'd certainly call 
all that deterioration.


>In fact, it seems, and the market among the real experts supports, 
> that the older wood has superior tonal qualities that the new wood does not.  

Ah yes, here we go. Who might these "real experts" be? I've 
been looking for a long time for a "real expert" who could hit 
his ass with either hand in low light on a clear day. I never 
dreamed there could be more than one. Names and E-mail 
addresses would be handy so I could ask them directly for 
clarification on these pesky issues on which I can't find 
information anywhere else. If I had known you were privy to 
these resources, I'd have asked a long time ago and saved 
myself a lot of time and money.


>       I have seen 80 year old bridge caps that were shot, but I have seen 
> more of them that were intact.  The cheaper the piano, it seems the higher the 
> incident of bad caps, (Knabe seems to be an exception).

"Intact" is debatable, but I have to concede that the Knabe 
caps are undeniably in a special ed class by themselves. What 
could they possibly have been thinking? Yea, there are a lot 
of old bridge caps out there functioning quite well, but there 
are a lot more that aren't - desirable brand name or not.


>   Time is money,  I am not working as a conservator at a museum.  The 
> difference in quality of wood is insufficient to justify the additional time in 
> rebuilding the parts.

It is? This statement, would seem to indicate otherwise.

>     The elasticity of a hammer shank could easily deteriorate to a point 
> where a new one would be better, but a very light, dry, brittle soundboard can be 
> more responsive than a new, heavier one. 

So the possible differences in wood quality of the shank 
between old and new isn't in fact, a factor for consideration, 
compared to the profit margin? This is a more honestly 
realistic assessment, and pragmatic approach, in my opinion, 
justified by the minimal demonstrable performance differences 
between old and new shanks. To those who drop-tune new shanks 
by pitch, I offer my apologies and condolences.


>      The efficacy of replacement of action parts has nothing to do with the 
> wood.  In the late '70's, when there was a dearth of parts for rebuilders, I 
> rebushed, reclothed, repinned, and resprung quite a few actions.  Those pianos 
> are still in professional use today, and the age of the wood is no handicap, at 
> all. 

Ah, good. Real stuff. so much for:

>     The elasticity of a hammer shank could easily deteriorate to a point 
> where a new one would be better, but a very light, dry, brittle soundboard can be 
> more responsive than a new, heavier one. 

Thank you. That's one down.


>>> Almost certainly, depending on your construction method. But 
> 
> why would you if that nice dry brittle soundboard still 
> 
> produces such fine response?>>
> 
>      Ron, I don't see the logic in this question.  Given that the soundboard 
> is an assembly, it is hard to blame the loss of tone on one simple component.  
> I don't think that the spruce is supporting anything, but the ribs can 
> certainly distort under extended load.  It seems to me that you are relying on straw 
> man caricatures to support a preconceived view that old wood is inferior 
> wood.  My experience is something different.  

Why would you do anything at all to a soundboard assembly, dry 
and brittle as it may be, that is doing what you want? That's 
the logic. I thought it was pretty straightforward, 
reasonable, and obvious. How is the "spruce" (panel?) not 
supporting something in a compression crowned board, and what 
is distortion of the ribs under extended load? How would this 
be a problem? For that matter, what is extended load?

I'm not putting up straw men. I'm trying to blow by the chaff 
to get to the real stuff.
Ron N