> Since my general protocol on rebuilds using original boards (Steinways > anyway) is to recap the capo section which often involves increasing the > bridge height, I have generally noticed (though very unscientifically) some > gain. It wasn't clear to me whether that was simply due to rescaling that > section (I usually increase the tensions somewhat as they are often a bit > low--especially on the smaller grands), improved terminations, or, as we are > discussing, an increase in stiffness, as you have pointed out. Since adding > stiffness is the usual goal on older soundboard killer octaves, what, if > any, would be a reason to not do this generally? Good question. I'd say generally, that anything you could do to add stiffness in the killer octave of an original Steinway board could only benefit, be it riblets, epoxying the soundboard, or the ever popular increase of downbearing. Nothing new here. You already know this at least as well as I. >What sort of increase in > bridge height would be needed to effect a change in stiffness in that > section and what do you think might be the point of diminishing returns and > what would those be? If we could accurately quantify what deficiencies are there originally, we could make a windage adjustment that would be dependable to the desired number of decimal points. I, for one, don't have this information. Given the option of changing the string scale, bridge configuration, rib scale and soundboard design, I can specify and build in enough of the pertinent variables to have some idea how it will work together and ultimately sound. Being strapped into dealing mostly with what's there, I become a field tech with voicing needles like anyone else. Something to ponder while gnawing on that turkey leg. > Or am I just full of stuffing? > > David Love You seem fine to me, chomp, but what do I know? Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC