<html> <body> RicB- More than the question of semantics in this present set of conversations is a carelessness in observing and respecting thread subject titles.  This time, I participated in the offense.  When this became "Soundboard stiffening"  I no longer expected to find answers to what is becoming narrowly referred to as my "coupling" questions.  I said this in a reply to Dale Erwin, however, I also replied to a post from Ron Nossman under the "stiffening" title which was actually still dealing with my coupling obsession.  I should have moved that discussion back to "No downbearing? REVISITED" . Since I owe Ron a response to his last (next to last) post, I will try to figure out how to title it clearly, if possible at this point.  Another serious problem, which makes this like a game of "telephone", is the tendency to distort intended meanings in the process of paraphrasing.  For example, in Dale Erwin's post which you responded to below, he presented his paraphrase of his understanding of my many questions, but he presented it as a quote from me, except 1) I never said it (as best as I can determine), and 2) as a paraphrase, its generality doesn't do justice to the range of very specific questions I have been asking.  In your previous post, you also complained of being misquoted.  But I feel you commit a similar error in that same post in your representation of my position. (RicB Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:18:10 +0100) <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>So Davids question as to whether he could walk into a store.. measure negative bearing at a spot and conclude without further ado that there is a <<problem>> must be answered with a no. </blockquote> This is a straw man, one which you set up only to be able to knock it down.  This does not do justice to the questions I have tried to raised. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>In the first place... its quite concievable that no << problem >> can be associated with any particular instance of localized negative downbearing. </blockquote> Or maybe your not hearing it, or maybe it hasn't manifest itself as an aural problem, yet. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite> Then, in the second place.. you immediatly open a monsterous can of worms, as much of what can be considered a <<problem>> in this context, is going to boil down to whether any particular type of sound is pleasing or not... good or bad... acceptable or not.... a subjective sumphole to suffocate in :)</blockquote> I don't think this is fair.  When in doubt, make everything subjective or relative? I'm starting to lose hope, or maybe I'm just hungry. David Skolnik At 09:26 AM 2/2/2004 +0100, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Erwinspiano@aol.com wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>    The amount of bearing does regulate the rate at which tonal energy leaves the board/system. Use a garden hose for an analogy turned on full blast then slowly pinch it to restrict water flow. This I belive is a simple definition of mechanical imedance. </blockquote> I think a better analogy would be that its what you place (and how close you place it)  in front of the stream of water coming out of the hose that determines how much water comes out. That the amount of downbearing can effect the net mechanical imedance the panel presents does not equate to "downbearing is the determining factor" Simply because downbearing is only one of several factors that can contribute. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>   David S's question which is ,"does bearing do anything other than make the board stiffer" I think can be answered by saying I think so based on what I said above. Its more reactive. Any thing under stress is more reactive.</blockquote> I think this statement says basically the same thing as I say above, and what John said in earlier posts. Seems to me we are getting hung up in sematics again. Cheers RicB _______________________________________________ pianotech list info: <a href="https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives" eudora="autourl">https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives</a></blockquote></body> </html>