[CAUT] Soundboard mass

[Ron Nossaman]

> Since my general protocol on rebuilds using original boards (Steinways
> anyway) is to recap the capo section which often involves increasing the
> bridge height, I have generally noticed (though very unscientifically) some
> gain.  It wasn't clear to me whether that was simply due to rescaling that
> section (I usually increase the tensions somewhat as they are often a bit
> low--especially on the smaller grands), improved terminations, or, as we are
> discussing, an increase in stiffness, as you have pointed out.  Since adding
> stiffness is the usual goal on older soundboard killer octaves, what, if
> any, would be a reason to not do this generally?  

Good question. I'd say generally, that anything you could do 
to add stiffness in the killer octave of an original Steinway 
board could only benefit, be it riblets, epoxying the 
soundboard, or the ever popular increase of downbearing. 
Nothing new here. You already know this at least as well as I.


>What sort of increase in
> bridge height would be needed to effect a change in stiffness in that
> section and what do you think might be the point of diminishing returns and
> what would those be? 

If we could accurately quantify what deficiencies are there 
originally, we could make a windage adjustment that would be 
dependable to the desired number of decimal points. I, for 
one, don't have this information. Given the option of changing 
the string scale, bridge configuration, rib scale and 
soundboard design, I can specify and build in enough of the 
pertinent variables to have some idea how it will work 
together and ultimately sound. Being strapped into dealing 
mostly with what's there, I become a field tech with voicing 
needles like anyone else.


  Something to ponder while gnawing on that turkey leg.
> Or am I just full of stuffing?
> 
> David Love

You seem fine to me, chomp, but what do I know?
Ron N