List... relative to the snip from Ed and Rons interchange below: The increased stiffness due to brittleness is in itself an asset for a soundboard. As an isolated factor it can easily be seen (depending on ones preferences) as a positive. I offered a Finnish study a couple years back to the list that dealt directly with this subject matter. Whether or not one can justify using an old panel that has developed this characteristic depends on other factors. Time is indeed money... and rebuilding an old soundboard so as to actually be able to utilize what real potential it has is not an inexpensive affair. Simple shimming and other stabilizing measures are typical for museum work.. but the purpose of such is not to bring the instrument to some renewed state of glory that bears any semblance to its origins. In many cases, a museum simply wants a physical record of an instrument as <<was>>. One other point I really have a hard time understanding... How can someone in one breath insist on the non-validity of comparing violins to pianos, and then turn around and compare hammer shanks to a soundboard. Considering the context of the comparisons being attempted... i.e. tonal qualities of old wood... that becomes especially baffling IMHO. Cheers RicB --------- Ron and Ed debate: Ed > 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. Ron It is? This statement, would seem to indicate otherwise. Ed > 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.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC