<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; = charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#d8d0c8> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi Cy,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>>>Lastly, this strange defense of soundboard = cracks from William Braid White:</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>></FONT><A href="http://steinway.com/technical/soundboard.shtml"><FONT = size=2>http://steinway.com/technical/soundboard.shtml</FONT></A></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Hmmmm...  Yes....  Well, the argument = would almost seem to hold water for a rib crowned board.  However, (and = sticking to the "holding water" analogy <grin>), saying that a SB's loss of efficiency is proportional to its loss in area is a bit like saying a rusted water pipe's loss of ability to hold pressure is = proportional to its loss of wall surface area.  Nonsense!  It's a lot more complicated than that.  Try making the board twice as big and = drilling out half of the wood (i.e. a Swiss cheese soundboard).  It = should be just as efficient according to their argument, right?  = Wrong!  It would be so acoustically "leaky" that it wouldn't radiate much power.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>However, all things considered, I suspect the = total loss of power in a cracked RC soundboard isn't all that significant, = nonsensical acoustical arguments notwithstanding.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Peace,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Sarah</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>