<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=UTF-8 http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charse=
t=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2730.1700" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000040></FON=
T>
<DIV><BR><BR>>& Many of them sound very nice.<BR><BR>And many of them=
don't sound anywhere near nice. Nice compared to what, a <BR>fifty year old=
Poole spinet? In my opinion, it's more a double standard of <BR>not holding=
them to similar standards of sound production as grands that <BR>makes thes=
e old uprights sound good. As in : very nice... considering... <BR>and bette=
r than I expected.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000040 size=3><STRONG> =
>Ron--As with many double standards the difference is econmics which is t=
he case between Grands & uprights. A grand is always about 3 times=
as expenseive which means the upright got about 3 times less of something.<=
/STRONG></FONT><BR><BR><BR>>In my mind the upright soundboard is more of =
a mass driven system. I.e. <BR>>long strings and big soundboards. These b=
oards are tapered, thicker at the <BR>>top in the treble & gradually =
thin down to about 1/4" near the bass/ <BR>>bottom end for flexibility.<B=
R><BR>If it's a mass driven system, why the attention to flexibility differe=
nces <BR>between the bass and treble? Where's the mass component that's any =
<BR>different from grands?<BR><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000040=
size=4>>> What I mean by this statement was a take off to =
;what Jean- Jacques original post was about ,in that the soundboard doesn't =
require bearing & crown to have the strings energy transferred to it, ju=
st coupling. The mass component I refer to is the stiffness &=
mass of the soundboard panel & ribs but minus the crown & bearing s=
quash for additional stiffness.</FONT><BR><BR>> I rece=
ntly put bridge caps on one of the first Baldwin Uprights <BR>> (1880) ev=
er built. (Gorgeous looking & sounding) The board was flat as a <BR>>=
pancake. I shimmed hairline cracks and then applied scraped off the old <BR=
>> varnish and epoxy finish treatment to the front of the board. This is =
an <BR>> amazing sounding piano. I really think that the hardness of the =
epoxy <BR>> finish is also a contributing tonal factor.<BR>> &nb=
sp; Food for the new year.<BR><FONT size=4>> <FONT size=
=3>Dale Erwin</FONT><BR><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000040>>=
;>>>> Notice I didn't say very nice,considering or better, =
I said amazing. The flat board was set up with some bearing but not that muc=
h. The tonal improvements come primarily from (some) bearing and t=
ight bridge pins in maple & new strings of course.</FONT></FONT><BR>Not =
very filling. Again, stiffening the board with epoxy "contributed to <BR>the=
tonal factor", but it's still somehow a mass driven system that was <BR>des=
igned to be without crown or bearing. I'd like a little gravy with these <BR=
>grits please.<BR><BR>Ron N</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3><STRONG>>>OK I'll go that one with you but If the =
epoxy added any additional stiffness to the board then would it not improve =
tonal output? However I won't bet on the ponies with this</STRONG> <FONT siz=
e=4>one.</FONT> </FONT><FONT size=4>Mainly this piano sounds good becaus=
e of superior American </FONT></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=
=#000040 size=4>Cra(P)ftsmanship.grin</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000040 size=4> Re=
gards--Dale</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000040 size=4> Go=
t a good storm going out here today & its coming your way</FONT></DIV></=
DIV></BODY></HTML>