<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>I would say it differently: the pluck test is very reliable, and completely useful, in most situations. The most reliable test of all, of course, if the piano is built and prepped well, is playing the damn thing.</div><div>DA</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"> <div style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id="role_body" bottommargin="7" leftmargin="7" rightmargin="7" topmargin="7"><font id="role_document" color="#000000" size="2" face="Arial"> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>In a message dated 3/18/2011 9:30:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time, <a href="mailto:davidlovepianos@comcast.net">davidlovepianos@comcast.net</a> writes:</div> <blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color="#1f497d" size="2" face="Calibri">When you pluck the string you bypass that initial force of the hammer string contact and jump right to the sustain phase.  It can be misleading.</font></blockquote> <div>A problem with the pluck test is that the vibrational physics of it are quite different from a struck string. One has to use it in its own context, and to hear what it is saying by practice. The pluck test is less reliable, in my experience, of the health of a soundboard, than a struck-string test, assuming proper regulation and hammers. </div> <div> </div> <div>P</div></font></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>