<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> I see your point Charles. And I think really much of this disscussion and others like it suffer from trying to sort out for sure whats being said by who. Take for example a sentence I see reoccurent in texts and web pages all over the place... <blockquote>"Sound is radiated from the soundboard into the air"  </blockquote> Now just what in the heck is this supposed to mean. What does the term "radiate" exactly describe in terms of real physics ? Just exactly how does that function ? And if sound is radiated from the soundboard.... well does that mean that sound must have been in the soundboard in the first place ? Or does it mean something else ? If so, then what ? In our disscussion we can spend litterally weeks bantering back and forth without having cleared up these kinds of basics first and get nearly nowhere in the process. I say nearly nowhere because actually several of us have been spurred by the discussion to start looking and reading and we are bound to pick up on some new knowledge that way. I think the whole disscussion needs to first resolve what exactly vibrational motion is to a greater degree then we have already. Then one can get into what kind of motion the soundboard is excited to take on, what kind of role the soundboard modes play in all this,  etc. And I say once again... I STILL (grin) dont see what consequences for design issues one perspective will have that the other will not. Perhaps there are conflicts relative to design built into these two perspectives, perhaps there are not. But I havent seen anyone mention any of that yet. So aside from being interesting for some and dead boring for others, it all remains very academic as far as I can see. Or what ?   Charles Neuman wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>RicB wrote: > If I wasnt confused before I sure am now.... On the one hand there is by > Weinreich pretty clear message that vertical (transverse to the soundboard) > movement is real important. I don't think the authors were clear enough what they meant by "vertical" or "transverse" or whatever. I think when Weibreich says   "The vertical motion of the   soundboard turns out to have much more 'give' than the horizontal   motion" I think he means that the board is flexible in an up-and-down way (for a grand piano) but not in the side-to-side way. So I think it agrees with the other article. That's also consistent with those other articles from Perdue. One of them said something about the horizontal motions not having been studied, and they implied they didn't think they were the most important motions. Charles</blockquote>     -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A>  </html>