Some good ideas and interpolations here, David. Since you usually invite comments and modifications, I would like to sort out a couple of things later, but need to get to work. Someone else may jump in before I can return.<br>
<br>NG<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:26 AM, David Love <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:davidlovepianos@comcast.net">davidlovepianos@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Here's another way to look at it. The amount of potential energy in the system is represented by the sum of the compression in the soundboard system (as Nick describes) plus the amount that can be delivered by the hammer, much like a wrecking ball at the peak of its arc poised to crash into the building. Different systems may have those two sources in different proportion. For the same energy output you might have one system that relies on a greater amount stored in the soundboard and one that relies on a greater amount delivered from the hammer. The differences in the way the energy is released by virtue of that proportional difference and how that manifests itself acoustically might go some way toward answering the JD question and the notion of "bloom", whatever that is . With more energy stored in the board the total system relies less on hammer input and the same total release of energy can be achieved with less energy coming from the hammer. When you think about the differences between that Steinway we loved with very light and soft hammers that seems to come alive at the slightest touch and the Yamaha that requires some greater input of energy it all seems to fall into place.<br>
<p></p><div class="im">David Love<br><a href="http://www.davidlovepianos.com" target="_blank">www.davidlovepianos.com</a><br></div>(sent from bb)<hr><div><b>From: </b> Nicholas Gravagne <<a href="mailto:ngravagne@gmail.com" target="_blank">ngravagne@gmail.com</a>>
</div><div><b>Sender: </b> <a href="mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org" target="_blank">pianotech-bounces@ptg.org</a>
</div><div><b>Date: </b>Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:36:53 -0700</div><div><b>To: </b><<a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org" target="_blank">pianotech@ptg.org</a>></div><div><b>ReplyTo: </b> <a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org" target="_blank">pianotech@ptg.org</a>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [pianotech] What is bloom,</div><div><br></div>I think so. This has to be the heart and soul of the whole matter. Voicing, then, evens things out and brings out the best balance, but the choice of hammers is important, after which the voicer can only work with the foundation offered by the belly. <br>
<br>Potential energy (PE) is achieved, and is proportional to, the measurable compression of the soundboard assembly under the force of downbearing. We already know that a string is useless until it is stretched to a high tension; PE is introduced and ready to be tapped. Likewise, hammer felt stretched and compressed over a molding contains PE, also ready to be tapped. PE becomes Kinetic Energy (KE) when tapped, or set in motion. The more PE stored, the more KE is available.<br>
<br>Clearly, too much of good thing spoils the effect. There are limits and points of diminishing returns.<br><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>