<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: Laminated Soundboard Panels</title></head><body> <div>At 2:02 PM +0000 4/2/04, Michael Gamble wrote:</div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">Hello List and Terry F</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">Regarding these laminated panels - in fact laminated soundboards of any instrument - there is no doubt that they are not as good as the usual solid panel.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>That's a bit of a sweeping statement Michael, and one with which I would definitely disagree.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"> To laminate incorporates a bonding between the laminations and this must surely have an effect on the resulting sound production.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Very unlikely. The glue will raise slightly the density of the resultant panel, but this alone is unlikely to effect the tone.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">I know for sure that a 'cello with a laminated belly has nothing like the sound quality of the normal carved belly.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>This may be so, but no pianos have a carved belly. Both laminated and solid sound board panels must always be made up of several pieces joined together.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"> I can only assume that the poor old sound waves aren't quite sure in which direction they are to go as they travel with the grain.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>You can't assume anything.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">They probably cancel each other out and that means poor quality output.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>I doubt it. I suspect you've passed judgement on the laminated panel based on the numerous trashy pianos out there with a laminated panel coupled with poor tone. Before you condemn all pianos with laminated boards, have a listen to the piano on our sound samples web page. It has a laminated panel.</div> <div><br></div> <div>http://overspianos.com.au/samp.html</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">I must say I do go for the analogy between the piano soundboard and the 'cello or Contra Bass so far as efficiency of sound production goes.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>If you were to compare pianos to cellos, I doubt if it will allow you to draw any worthwhile conclusion about sound board design philosophy. Each is designed from a completely different objective.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"> Laminations have only one thing going for them IMHO and that is strength.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>I disagree. Solid panels are stronger along the grain and weaker across the grain, while laminated panels tend to be more average in strength in both directions. Strength is not the 'strong point' of laminated panels. I believe the primary benefit of laminated panels<font color="#0000FF"> (those which are made from quartered spruce all through)</font> is their dimensional stability and their ability to resist degrade in varying ambient conditions.  I doubt very much if there is any noticeable tonal difference between a quality laminated or a quality solid sound board. I use laminated panels because they result in pianos with outstanding tuning stability and the boards are resistant to compression ridging.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">We're not really looking for strength, per se, in the construction of soundboards, but for maximum sound output of the highest quality coupled with the strength to produce it.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>To desire to achieve the highest sound output alone with a given design is, I believe, a seriously flawed quest. The primary object in designing a piano must be to arrive at a balance between power and sustain. This is why I believe it is pointless to make analogies between pianos and bowed instruments. The objectives are quite different. When playing a bowed instrument, with the exception of pizzicato, the string is excited for the entire time. In the piano the hammer strikes the string and that's it. From then on the tone goes through a gradual period of decay until it disappears. Just imagine what sort of a disastrous piano we would have if it was designed for the highest power alone. A powerful tone which which decayed quickly would be pretty uninteresting.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"> That's what Stradivarius achieved with his instruments and that must be the goal of anyone attempting that fickle art.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>I find the aura that surrounds Stradivarius today to be rather tiring. Often we hear of front ranking string players who are using a Strad', and how wonderful it is. What most people fail to acknowledge is that none of them are playing Strads which are faithful to their original design. All of the concert use Strads have been modified to conform more to what musicians require in power from a modern bowed instrument. An original Strad would be considered 'gutless' by today's standards. Today's modified Strads have been highly modified to produce the output levels expected of a contemporary instrument. This charade has got to the silly situation where serious contemporary luthier's instruments are overlooked because they don't have the right pedigree.</div> <div><br></div> <div>So we have this absolutely ridiculous situation which has evolved, where Strads and other earlier stringed instruments are being modified in various ways to satisfy modern performance requirements - and it appears to be acceptable, while on the other hand we have the 'holier than thou' community who throw their hands in the air in horror when somebody dares to modify pianos manufactured by one of the high class manufacturers.</div> <div><br></div> <div>At 9:41 PM -0800 3/2/04, Donald Mannino wrote:</div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>- The laminated panels used in most pianos</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>But not all<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite> that have them are cheaper to make because of the low price of the wood used.  Very low grade core wood has usually been covered with slightly nicer looking veneer.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>But not all.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>  Making up a soundboard of spruce, even low grade spruce, is more work and wastes much more of the raw wood.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Absolutely.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>- I agree with you that there is no reason that laminated panels can't produce sound as well as traditional panels.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>What about 'produce sound as good, but with more consistency from piano to piano, and with a very much longer service life' ?</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>  The few efforts at making high quality laminated soundboards have shown this, but they have always been a marketing flop.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>The only piano maker that I know of who has used an all spruce laminated panel has been Samick. Almost all of the remainder, to my knowledge, have used trash-wood for the internal laminates. We have used all-spruce laminated panels for our first four pianos. I'm currently using a solid panel for our fifth instrument, which will be otherwise identical to no. 4<font color="#0000FF"> (all our boards have been 100% rib crowned)</font>. I expect to be using laminated panels for all future instruments. Samick have started using solid panels in their pianos<font color="#0000FF"> (probably in response to ignorance on the part of both consumers and technicians)</font>. Their solid paneled instruments appear to be having more sound board problems, judging from the instruments I've examined to date.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Regarding Don's claim that the few efforts at building instruments with quality laminated panels have been a marketing flop, from where I'm sitting at present its a little early to tell. At present I'm finishing my fifth piano and all are sold including no. 5. Next month we'll start building another two 225s since at this time, I've got no stock available for sale.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>  The piano market is awfully conservative about changing materials.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>True, but that should not be a sufficient reason alone not to use an alternative method if it proves to be superior. If the argument you put against laminated panels was to be adopted by Kawai, they would never have introduced their ABS actions. I believe that the use ABS for action parts is an excellent idea, which is superior to using wood, and that eventually this will be fully accepted by the market. Let's not condemn a technology out of hand without giving it proper scrutiny. If the market is biased against a good idea, I believe we have a responsibility as professionals in our industry to educate the sometimes idiotic-market we serve.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Ron O.</div> <x-sigsep><pre>-- </pre></x-sigsep> <div><font face="Times New Roman" size="+1" color="#0000FF"><b>OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY</b></font></div> <div><font color="#000000"><i>   </i></font><font color="#0000FF"><i>Grand Piano Manufacturers</i></font><font color="#000000"><br> _______________________</font></div> <div><font size="-2" color="#000000"><br> </font><font color="#000000">Web http://overspianos.com.au</font></div> <div><font color="#000000">mailto:info@overspianos.com.au<br> _______________________</font></div> </body> </html>