<HTML><BODY STYLE="font:10pt verdana; border:none;"><DIV>Robin</DIV> <D=
IV> </DIV> <DIV>I write this in response to your post listed at the =
end of this post. Thanks for being transparent.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <=
DIV> I've been collecting my thoughts about your post for a few=
days now. I think the reason the post failed to get more reaction is tha=
t the subject was fairly exhausted a few months back I don't know if you =
caught it. </DIV> <DIV> Much of what you said resonated with me in t=
hat there seems to be no verifiable explanation for the phenomena you des=
cribe and no consensus either. As one who has also been paying close atte=
ntion to the sounds of the various multitude of aging pianos the have run=
thru the shop I have found many boards that were completely fractured/an=
d flat or just flat that sounded amazingly good but also I've n=
oted fractured/ or just flat boards boards that looked eq=
ually good/ bad that had no chance of resurrection. </DIV> <DIV>&nbs=
p; I confess I sold A Stwy M this week . The 1927 M boa=
rd had no crown and little bearing and after rebuilding action, strings a=
nd finish the piano was sweet, lovely and big sounding . Why&nb=
sp; the difference? There are as we know a host of determining factors th=
at bear on the mystique of the magic sound boards. Crown, down beari=
ng and mass are only one functioning model of a working soundboard b=
ut I also think just the mass model of a board is valid too.I.E Very litt=
le compression, no crown and nominal bearing. The tonal results don'=
t lie so I'm at least half a heretic too. That being said it would b=
e hard to produce that model with any reliable and consistent results. Yo=
u just fid them where you find them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> &=
nbsp; On the other side of my experience I have installed =
many of my own boards and as others are I too am trying to push the =
envelope of sustain and power. I have achieved a sound with some of =
my pianos that are I.M H.O. as good as any I've ever heard. I've al=
so heard some of the best pianos ever and they were Steinways and a few m=
asons from the late 60's and early seventies( The Horror Years) =
;I believe the stwys' were Sitka spruce boards with sugar pine ribs =
and they were to die for. The sustain was truly remarkable and the overal=
l tone lively and responsive. The Masons I think were eastern spruce=
.</DIV> <DIV> One example</DIV>=
<DIV> I had the pleasure of rebuilding a 7 ft. Stwy 1873. I =
put in gorgeous tight grain Sitka board with sugar pine ribs, partial rib=
crowned nicely diaphramized at the edges. Set it up with the pre-stresse=
d method of setting down bearing , Nice hammers and voicing and Robin the=
piano was awesome. I know you have to take my word for it but I'm as har=
d to please as the next guy with ears. My point is that making a sound bo=
ard is just a woodworking project that incorporates design, quality mater=
ials and common sense to produce. It's not magic. </DIV> <DIV>  =
; We still have good wood though it be hard to find. My own personal pref=
erence is Sitka spruce because after using everything else I find that th=
e Sitka exhibits consistent wonderful sustain.</DIV> <DIV> I conclu=
sion the "Magic sound board "is an only partially explainable thing but I=
'm not a guy who has to quantity everything under a microscope I just kno=
w if my ears are blessed by the sound coming out a fine piano no matter h=
ow old the wood in the soundboard happens to be.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> =
<DIV> Best---Dale Erwin</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQ=
UOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BO=
RDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10p=
t Arial">----- Original Message -----</DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4=
e4e4; FONT: 10pt Arial; COLOR: black"><B>From:</B> Robin Hufford</DIV> <D=
IV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, November 11, 2001 11:3=
1 AM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>To:</B> pianotech@ptg.org</=
DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>Subject:</B> Confessions of a sou=
ndboard heretic</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>Richard Breckne wrote:<BR>One of t=
he really interesting topics that come up in our discussions<BR>las=
t nite<BR>was this buisness of aging in wood.....<BR><BR>Richard,<BR>&nbs=
p; With all due respect to the very earnest and intense=
opinions that<BR>have been expressed previously here on the list as to t=
he deterioration<BR>of soundboards over time I must say that I remain unc=
onvinced that a<BR>long term improvement in the sound produced by many ag=
ed boards is out<BR>of the question, in the case, at least, of most=
high-quality American<BR>pianos. In fact my experience has been es=
sentially to the contrary as<BR>to my own perception of the sound p=
roduced by the thousands of these<BR>pianos I have played, tuned, s=
erviced and rebuilt, over the years: in<BR>spite of worn, har=
d hammers, deteriorated strings and other problems,<BR>many have what I w=
ould characterize as a more musical, emotional sound,<BR>with adequate po=
wer and ring time throughout the scale. A similiar<BR>improvement&n=
bsp; is also perceptible to me, in the same fashion, not<BR>always,=
but most of the time when the comparison is made between many<BR>o=
lder or newer violins. I have noticed, however, that there is=
a<BR>tendency for some of the pianos to have a slightly less =
ring time in<BR>the last two and a half octaves or so. This is no =
impediment to me,<BR>however, as to the musical use of the instrument,&nb=
sp; speaking from my own<BR>experience as a pianist who has practic=
ed literally thousands of hours<BR>and performed in public, both formally=
and informally, on many<BR>occasions. I would also point out, spea=
king as a technician, that our<BR>general, overall concept of the sound o=
btainable from a piano is<BR>conditioned prinicipally from our expo=
sure to the modern pianos built<BR>in the last hundred and twenty years o=
r so in which the problems of<BR>ringtime, volume, and musical timb=
er have been solved in a somewhat<BR>characterisic way. As we all k=
now previous pianos were substantially<BR>different. Those differen=
cies, however, may not have been altogether<BR>negative.<BR> &=
nbsp; Much of the great literature composed for pianos =
in the last two<BR>hundred or so years was composed with pianos in mind w=
hich exhibited a<BR>substantially different set of attributes of so=
und. These<BR>characteristics some would argue were inferior as to =
ringtime and other<BR>characteristics, particularly in the treble, =
in comparison to the<BR>modern piano - a point I would agree =
with only in a qualified<BR>manner. But I would certainly agr=
ee wholeheartedly that they were<BR>different greatly from more modern in=
struments. Notwithstanding these<BR>differences, a large corpus of =
music was composed, as I have said, with<BR>them in mind. This lend=
s strength to the observation that the<BR>differences between, a da=
ta set if we had such, of sounds from a<BR>representative sampling of pia=
nos from, say, 1800, and a set from more<BR>modern pianos would not be an=
impediment to the production and<BR>performance of great music. Ha=
ving heard a number of what aim for and<BR>are purported to b=
e faithful reconstructions, both in Europe and the<BR>US, I can say=
that I find these pianos do have a beautiful sound,<BR>perhaps superior =
as to beauty of timber, in spite of their shorter,<BR>harpsichord-like, r=
ingtime in the treble, their transition problems and<BR>general lack of p=
ower. The point I am making is: as pianofortes have<BR>=
not been an impediment which has precluded the conceptualization and<BR>p=
erformance of great music then the older modern-class pianos insofa=
r<BR>as they exhibit after aging some of these characterictics will neith=
er<BR>be such an impediment. I do not however, believe that vast ma=
jority of<BR>well rebuilt modern pianos, at least those that have some cr=
own<BR>remaining, and even some that do not, have these deficiencies to a=
<BR>signifacent degree. Having said this, although rare in my exper=
ience, I<BR>have seen some pianos in which my impression was that the sou=
ndboard<BR>would, of necessity, have to be replaced, in order to cure som=
e<BR>particular deficiencies in the sound and these deficiencies are almo=
st<BR>always in the treble area.<BR> =
Taking many of these modern pianos through my shop and rebuilding<BR>them=
by replacing actions, pinblocks, repairing, shimming, or epoxing<B=
R>the existing soundboards, recapping bridges, adjusting downbearing,<BR>=
etc.etc: I have not had in even one case a problem obtaining =
a<BR>beautifully singing, hi-quality, powerful sound as a result. Contras=
ting<BR>these instruments with similar ones in which the boards have been=
<BR>replaced, some of which I have assisted in the replacement of, =
or to<BR>new pianos, I am forced to confess, at least to my ear, they sou=
nd as a<BR>rule better. It is true that there may be slightly=
less power in an<BR>occasional instrument at a few places in=
the fifth to sixth octave but<BR>this is not substantial and can almost =
always be overcome by working the<BR>hammers and string lifting. Th=
e tradeoff for this is the tone is<BR>essentially better in a musical sen=
se, at least to my ear and I note<BR>many others making the same observat=
ions. I think this is the<BR>experience of many rebuild=
ers. Additionally, one can note the comments<BR>of customers, compl=
etely untutored as most of them are in any aspect of<BR>piano techn=
ology or acoustics: they spontaneously comment more<BR>favora=
bly on the sound of many older unrebuilt pianos notwithstanding<BR>=
the evident technical deficiences that have accumulated over time. &=
nbsp; If<BR>one has the experience to factor out these deficiencies =
(harshness,<BR>short sustain, etc.) by attributing them to their respect=
ive sources and<BR>has experienced first hand what replacement of these p=
arts or techniques<BR>will change in the overall sound then it is a relat=
ively easy matter to<BR>judge the utility of further work My experi=
ence of these matters forces<BR>me to conclude that what at one time seem=
ed to be a general consensus<BR>expressed in the Journal that a soundboar=
d with any measurable crown<BR>was rebuildable and did not in and o=
f itself require replacement is, in<BR>fact, the case. Along with t=
his can be found many observations of the<BR>"beautiful, singing, t=
one" of these older pianos - and, in come cases,<BR>even where the =
board has flattened altogether.<BR> Whether=
a soundboard, enduring its own particular, unique ambient<BR>lifestyle, =
with its own unique, particular characteristics will be<BR>changed =
over time and thereby change the characteristics of sound<BR>=
radiating from it, is, I think, something few on this list wo=
uld<BR>disagree with. The question is, holding constant=
numerous other<BR>factors, what are these changes and can they possibly =
be for the<BR>better. My experience and the experience at least as =
far as I can tell<BR>from many other technicians, musicians, and other pe=
ople that I am in<BR>contact with, is that indeed that can and they=
do. Why this is, or can<BR>or cannot be, is another question=
entirely and nothing expressed<BR>heretofore on this list has been persu=
asive to me in this regard. This<BR>is not simply a matter of willf=
ullness on my part but rather arises<BR>involuntarily from my experience =
with the instrument. Donning Flame<BR>Suit and ac=
quiring fire extinguisher.<BR>Robin Hufford RPT<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQ=
UOTE></BODY></HTML>