<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>OMG---finally some real-world data.</div><div>I can't believe that it's just Erwin and I who pluck strings, in the method described below, to assess soundboard health. All this speculative</div><div>sorta scientific wondering is missing the point. Good soundboards produce a bloom or a swell, a strengthening pulse, an added sustain, when the string is plucked, usually within 2 seconds of the pluck. whatever it technically is, it happens on high-functioning boards and is choked off, does not occur, in low-functioning boards. An extremely useful diagnostic phenomenon. Does that make sense?</div><div>DA</div><div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Mar 18, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Dale Erwin <<a href="mailto:erwinspiano@aol.com">erwinspiano@aol.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font color="black" size="2" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">R<font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif" size="2">on<br>   How about sound pressure, partial balance and clarity.  The short subjective version is that when I puck a string to test sustain I alwasy try  to pluck lightly with the same amount of force. If I pluck lightly and it just seems to be like a horse that wants to run free and easy...I like it...a lot. If I pluck a string lightly and there seems to be a resistance to vibrating freely...then that dog just won't hunt.<br>  Does that clear it all up?<br> <br> <div> <br> </div> <div> <br> </div> <div style="clear: both;"><b><font color="indigo" size="1"><font face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif"><font size="2">Dale S. Erwin<br> </font></font><font face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif"><font size="2"><font size="1"><a href="http://www.Erwinspiano.com">www.Erwinspiano.com</a></font></font><br> <font size="1">Custom restoration<br> Ronsen Piano hammers<br> Join the Weickert felt Revolution<br> 209-577-8397</font></font><br> 209-985-0990</font><font size="1"><br> </font></b><br> <br> </div> <div> <br> </div> <div> <br> </div> <div style="font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 10pt; color: black;">-----Original Message-----<br> From: Ron Nossaman <<a href="mailto:rnossaman@cox.net">rnossaman@cox.net</a>><br> To: <a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org"><a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a></a><br> Sent: Fri, Mar 18, 2011 5:39 pm<br> Subject: Re: [pianotech] What is bloom,<br> <br> <div id="AOLMsgPart_0_2dab525e-b848-4626-a962-ef0c4fe90ba2" style="margin: 0px; font-family: Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> On 3/18/2011 3:23 PM, David M. Porritt wrote: <br> > I am very aware of how our expectations affect what we see, hear, <br> > believe etc. Could “bloom” be a result of different expectations? If we <br> > are expecting decay like this: <br>  <br> -Simulate steep decline graphic- <br>  <br> > since that is what we get on most pianos, but if we get decay like this: <br>  <br> -Simulate shallow decline graphic- <br>  <br> > Our brain could interpret it as bloom since it is more than we expected. <br>  <br> I agree, from my questionable experience. Reshaping the tonal envelope to produce a less dramatic impact spike, and a shallower transition into dwell, tapering gradually into decay gives the subjective impression of more sound (average) for longer. I've always much disliked the term "bloom" for this effect, since it doesn't, so "bloom" isn't really descriptive and I consider it misleading. It just dies more gradually, gracefully, and less traumatically, like UL approved electrical products. <br>  <br> And it's still nowhere near the phenomenon JD brought up. <br> Ron N <br> </div>  </div> </font></font> </div></blockquote></body></html>