[pianotech] Soundboard Pictures

[Noah Frere]

I agree, although there is a degree of subjectivity there which I like to
sometimes temper with science.

Unfortunately, like an idiot, I didn't tune or even play very much the piano
in question, so I won't have a solid before-after comparison in that regard.
However, I did measure the sustain in seconds. That will at least be worth
something.

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:11 AM, David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>wrote:

>  The proof of the pudding is in the listening.
>
>
>
> David Love
>
> www.davidlovepianos.com
>
>
>
> *From:* pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Noah Frere
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:11 PM
> *To:* pianotech at ptg.org
> *Subject:* [pianotech] Soundboard Pictures
>
>
>
> I have been reading for quite some time now, thanks to our wonderful
> restored Archives, about soundboards. However, I fear I will be up half the
> night with lots of ideas flying around, flying...
>
> So, I have been planning on shimming a 1909 B. Shoninger soundboard with
> large cracks, but was told it would be a waste of time, since the soundboard
> is dead.
>
> Now I don't want to start another round of arguments about this, so - are
> there any scientific pictures of soundboard compressed wood fibers compared
> to a new soundboard? In other words, microscopic photos of a "living" versus
> "dead" soundboard? And, any scientific data giving evidence of the "death"
> of an old board?
>
> Meanwhile I will continue reading,
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20090213/b96bd7d6/attachment.html>