Pianotech

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

Chris

What makes you think most people copy what's there?  Most people I know don't, though they may use the original design as a reference or starting point. 

The math doesn't tell you which way to go, it gives you a quantifiable way to know what you did and modify it in a measurable way as you see fit on the next project. Otherwise it's just guess work.

The math that people use doesn't actually measure impedance, it measures the features that affect impedance. But ultimately the impedance characteristics are a big part of what our ears are responding to and tell us whether it's working or not. 

It's interesting that you ask why anybody would change from the original compression crowned system to a rib crowned system yet you seem to have no problem reducing the original weight from 3-8 lbs, probably representing anywhere from 15–45% of the original weight of the assembly.  I presume you do that because you like the sound better. I'm not sure everyone would agree but I would guess the person who goes from compression to rib crowned would make no less compelling an argument. 

What the math tells me is that you can't possibly reduce the weight of an assembly by that much without having a fairly drastic impact on the impedance characteristics whether you take the weight from panel thickness or rib dimensions or both. I won't argue with anyone's taste, but I can't imagine doing that on any assembly that I can think of, not without some drastic changes to other elements of the design to accompany it. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

Chris

What makes you think most people copy what's there?  Most people I know don't, though they may use the original design as a reference or starting point. 

The math doesn't tell you which way to go, it gives you a quantifiable way to know what you did and modify it in a measurable way as you see fit on the next project. Otherwise it's just guess work.

The math that people use doesn't actually measure impedance, it measures the features that affect impedance. But ultimately the impedance characteristics are a big part of what our ears are responding to and tell us whether it's working or not. 

It's interesting that you ask why anybody would change from the original compression crowned system to a rib crowned system yet you seem to have no problem reducing the original weight from 3-8 lbs, probably representing anywhere from 15–45% of the original weight of the assembly.  I presume you do that because you like the sound better. I'm not sure everyone would agree but I would guess the person who goes from compression to rib crowned would make no less compelling an argument. 

What the math tells me is that you can't possibly reduce the weight of an assembly by that much without having a fairly drastic impact on the impedance characteristics whether you take the weight from panel thickness or rib dimensions or both. I won't argue with anyone's taste, but I can't imagine doing that on any assembly that I can think of, not without some drastic changes to other elements of the design to accompany it. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

WILLIAM:  Chris, you seem so purposely vague about real world numbers, what you are trying to do and how you go about it, that there is very little that we the readers can sink our teeth into and make sense out of. That limits the value of what you say.  Then you ask the skeptics for numbers that you do not give yourself.

I do not think it would be difficult for you to weigh each rib of a full set of prepped ribs made to your design  You could have removed each of the original ribs, cleaned them up, and weighed them.  That would be very interesting, since I have seen pictures of your asymmetrical rib design on Piano World.  You could weigh the original bridges after removal and the capped and prepped bridges before installation. And weigh the panels themselves.  This would tell more of the tale, and be instructive.

forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/3024674/...

ME:  I have shared the numbers many times. Even made a video. So I don't understand how you can say I'm being vague. Again, (and I'll try to be more clear) I can take a board that weighs 19lbs in a 5'8" piano and reduce it to 15 lbs. This happens collectively:

1: re-engineering the rib scale so that it has a 20% built in stress safety margin. They end up much lighter than the original because of them being made to slightly smaller dimensions, changing from spruce to EWP, and eliminating excess wood on the long side away from the bridge.

2. A lot of thicknessing comes off the bass and the corner of the panel. I use Spruce. Often most pianos leave their panels much too thick. So more can come off than people realize. I would say that I am probably in ballpark of SS diaphragmatic panel but I leave my treble portion thicker than they do. At the end of the video was a Steinway M soundboard and it too weighed 15lbs.

3. I use the old root of the bridge and lately have been recapping with hickory. Yes it's a little heavier (but not much) than maple but it's worth it. WAY worth it.

I honestly don't see the need to itemized the weight of everything as the final weight difference says it all.


WILLIAM:   You have not offered numbers for the panel in terms of thickness and tapering for both the original and the new.  I suggested this tool to you as a means of readily and quickly measuring thickness.  www.magicprobe.net Pretty interesting electronic thickness gauge.

ME:  Very nice tool and I appreciate the awareness of it. Thank you.

WILLIAM:   In the Piano World discussion from which this subject derives, you were less than careful about certain claims.  Your rib material of choice these days is Eastern White Pine, which appears to be an excellent substitute for Sugar Pine.  They both weigh about the same - the average dried weight (ADW) for both is 25 lbs.  The Eastern White Pine is a bit stronger, the MOE of EWP is 1,240.000 and the MOE of Sugar Pine is 1,190,000 lbs per square inch, the EWP is 1.04 times stronger.  You compared the EWP to Sitka Spruce, saying that the Spruce is much heavier.  With an ADW of 27 lbs,  Sitka Spruce is heavier, at 1.08 times that of EWP. 

ME:   Thank you for verifying the data.

WILLIAM:  But Sitka Spruce is also stiffer than EWP (1.29 times so - the MOE of Spruce is 1,600,000).  If you are making a rib of the same stiffeness, the Sitka Spruce rib can be made smaller, so I think the actual weight differences would be negligible. 

 ME: True, but who said I am after the same stiffness?  If the fundamental frequency of a board is an indicator of stiffness (and I think it is) most soundboards have a fundamental frequency in the upper 50's in herz (New ones , probably a little higher). Older boards drop down to the low 50's. My boards are in the mid 40hz range when new. I did have to come up with a better way to set downbearing than what I was doing (aka gravagne) to get better results, but that is another story.

 WILLIAM: You actually claimed that the EWP is almost as light as Balsa.  That is far from true.  EWP is 2.78 times heavier than Balsa - the ADW of Balsa is only 9 lbs. compared to EWP at 25 lbs. 

 ME:  HAHA, you got me William!!  Actually, this was just me trying to describe something in a bad way.  I was just trying to describe that the EWP ribs were a lot lighter than spruce ribs.

WILLIAM: I will be going down to Jim's shop in the coming weeks to listen to his Titanium pins.  That will be interesting and fun. 

ME:  Yes, enjoy, I would like to visit him one day myself.  I've never been to Boston, but would like to spend a vacation there.

-chris

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

WILLIAM:  Chris, you seem so purposely vague about real world numbers, what you are trying to do and how you go about it, that there is very little that we the readers can sink our teeth into and make sense out of. That limits the value of what you say.  Then you ask the skeptics for numbers that you do not give yourself.

I do not think it would be difficult for you to weigh each rib of a full set of prepped ribs made to your design  You could have removed each of the original ribs, cleaned them up, and weighed them.  That would be very interesting, since I have seen pictures of your asymmetrical rib design on Piano World.  You could weigh the original bridges after removal and the capped and prepped bridges before installation. And weigh the panels themselves.  This would tell more of the tale, and be instructive.

forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/3024674/...

ME:  I have shared the numbers many times. Even made a video. So I don't understand how you can say I'm being vague. Again, (and I'll try to be more clear) I can take a board that weighs 19lbs in a 5'8" piano and reduce it to 15 lbs. This happens collectively:

1: re-engineering the rib scale so that it has a 20% built in stress safety margin. They end up much lighter than the original because of them being made to slightly smaller dimensions, changing from spruce to EWP, and eliminating excess wood on the long side away from the bridge.

2. A lot of thicknessing comes off the bass and the corner of the panel. I use Spruce. Often most pianos leave their panels much too thick. So more can come off than people realize. I would say that I am probably in ballpark of SS diaphragmatic panel but I leave my treble portion thicker than they do. At the end of the video was a Steinway M soundboard and it too weighed 15lbs.

3. I use the old root of the bridge and lately have been recapping with hickory. Yes it's a little heavier (but not much) than maple but it's worth it. WAY worth it.

I honestly don't see the need to itemized the weight of everything as the final weight difference says it all.


WILLIAM:   You have not offered numbers for the panel in terms of thickness and tapering for both the original and the new.  I suggested this tool to you as a means of readily and quickly measuring thickness.  www.magicprobe.net Pretty interesting electronic thickness gauge.

ME:  Very nice tool and I appreciate the awareness of it. Thank you.

WILLIAM:   In the Piano World discussion from which this subject derives, you were less than careful about certain claims.  Your rib material of choice these days is Eastern White Pine, which appears to be an excellent substitute for Sugar Pine.  They both weigh about the same - the average dried weight (ADW) for both is 25 lbs.  The Eastern White Pine is a bit stronger, the MOE of EWP is 1,240.000 and the MOE of Sugar Pine is 1,190,000 lbs per square inch, the EWP is 1.04 times stronger.  You compared the EWP to Sitka Spruce, saying that the Spruce is much heavier.  With an ADW of 27 lbs,  Sitka Spruce is heavier, at 1.08 times that of EWP. 

ME:   Thank you for verifying the data.

WILLIAM:  But Sitka Spruce is also stiffer than EWP (1.29 times so - the MOE of Spruce is 1,600,000).  If you are making a rib of the same stiffeness, the Sitka Spruce rib can be made smaller, so I think the actual weight differences would be negligible. 

 ME: True, but who said I am after the same stiffness?  If the fundamental frequency of a board is an indicator of stiffness (and I think it is) most soundboards have a fundamental frequency in the upper 50's in herz (New ones , probably a little higher). Older boards drop down to the low 50's. My boards are in the mid 40hz range when new. I did have to come up with a better way to set downbearing than what I was doing (aka gravagne) to get better results, but that is another story.

 WILLIAM: You actually claimed that the EWP is almost as light as Balsa.  That is far from true.  EWP is 2.78 times heavier than Balsa - the ADW of Balsa is only 9 lbs. compared to EWP at 25 lbs. 

 ME:  HAHA, you got me William!!  Actually, this was just me trying to describe something in a bad way.  I was just trying to describe that the EWP ribs were a lot lighter than spruce ribs.

WILLIAM: I will be going down to Jim's shop in the coming weeks to listen to his Titanium pins.  That will be interesting and fun. 

ME:  Yes, enjoy, I would like to visit him one day myself.  I've never been to Boston, but would like to spend a vacation there.

-chris

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

WILLIAM:  Chris, you seem so purposely vague about real world numbers, what you are trying to do and how you go about it, that there is very little that we the readers can sink our teeth into and make sense out of. That limits the value of what you say.  Then you ask the skeptics for numbers that you do not give yourself.

I do not think it would be difficult for you to weigh each rib of a full set of prepped ribs made to your design  You could have removed each of the original ribs, cleaned them up, and weighed them.  That would be very interesting, since I have seen pictures of your asymmetrical rib design on Piano World.  You could weigh the original bridges after removal and the capped and prepped bridges before installation. And weigh the panels themselves.  This would tell more of the tale, and be instructive.

forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/3024674/...

ME:  I have shared the numbers many times. Even made a video. So I don't understand how you can say I'm being vague. Again, (and I'll try to be more clear) I can take a board that weighs 19lbs in a 5'8" piano and reduce it to 15 lbs. This happens collectively:

1: re-engineering the rib scale so that it has a 20% built in stress safety margin. They end up much lighter than the original because of them being made to slightly smaller dimensions, changing from spruce to EWP, and eliminating excess wood on the long side away from the bridge.

2. A lot of thicknessing comes off the bass and the corner of the panel. I use Spruce. Often most pianos leave their panels much too thick. So more can come off than people realize. I would say that I am probably in ballpark of SS diaphragmatic panel but I leave my treble portion thicker than they do. At the end of the video was a Steinway M soundboard and it too weighed 15lbs.

3. I use the old root of the bridge and lately have been recapping with hickory. Yes it's a little heavier (but not much) than maple but it's worth it. WAY worth it.

I honestly don't see the need to itemized the weight of everything as the final weight difference says it all.


WILLIAM:   You have not offered numbers for the panel in terms of thickness and tapering for both the original and the new.  I suggested this tool to you as a means of readily and quickly measuring thickness.  www.magicprobe.net Pretty interesting electronic thickness gauge.

ME:  Very nice tool and I appreciate the awareness of it. Thank you.

WILLIAM:   In the Piano World discussion from which this subject derives, you were less than careful about certain claims.  Your rib material of choice these days is Eastern White Pine, which appears to be an excellent substitute for Sugar Pine.  They both weigh about the same - the average dried weight (ADW) for both is 25 lbs.  The Eastern White Pine is a bit stronger, the MOE of EWP is 1,240.000 and the MOE of Sugar Pine is 1,190,000 lbs per square inch, the EWP is 1.04 times stronger.  You compared the EWP to Sitka Spruce, saying that the Spruce is much heavier.  With an ADW of 27 lbs,  Sitka Spruce is heavier, at 1.08 times that of EWP. 

ME:   Thank you for verifying the data.

WILLIAM:  But Sitka Spruce is also stiffer than EWP (1.29 times so - the MOE of Spruce is 1,600,000).  If you are making a rib of the same stiffeness, the Sitka Spruce rib can be made smaller, so I think the actual weight differences would be negligible. 

 ME: True, but who said I am after the same stiffness?  If the fundamental frequency of a board is an indicator of stiffness (and I think it is) most soundboards have a fundamental frequency in the upper 50's in herz (New ones , probably a little higher). Older boards drop down to the low 50's. My boards are in the mid 40hz range when new. I did have to come up with a better way to set downbearing than what I was doing (aka gravagne) to get better results, but that is another story.

 WILLIAM: You actually claimed that the EWP is almost as light as Balsa.  That is far from true.  EWP is 2.78 times heavier than Balsa - the ADW of Balsa is only 9 lbs. compared to EWP at 25 lbs. 

 ME:  HAHA, you got me William!!  Actually, this was just me trying to describe something in a bad way.  I was just trying to describe that the EWP ribs were a lot lighter than spruce ribs.

WILLIAM: I will be going down to Jim's shop in the coming weeks to listen to his Titanium pins.  That will be interesting and fun. 

ME:  Yes, enjoy, I would like to visit him one day myself.  I've never been to Boston, but would like to spend a vacation there.

-chris

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

WILLIAM:  Chris, you seem so purposely vague about real world numbers, what you are trying to do and how you go about it, that there is very little that we the readers can sink our teeth into and make sense out of. That limits the value of what you say.  Then you ask the skeptics for numbers that you do not give yourself.

I do not think it would be difficult for you to weigh each rib of a full set of prepped ribs made to your design  You could have removed each of the original ribs, cleaned them up, and weighed them.  That would be very interesting, since I have seen pictures of your asymmetrical rib design on Piano World.  You could weigh the original bridges after removal and the capped and prepped bridges before installation. And weigh the panels themselves.  This would tell more of the tale, and be instructive.

forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/3024674/...

ME:  I have shared the numbers many times. Even made a video. So I don't understand how you can say I'm being vague. Again, (and I'll try to be more clear) I can take a board that weighs 19lbs in a 5'8" piano and reduce it to 15 lbs. This happens collectively:

1: re-engineering the rib scale so that it has a 20% built in stress safety margin. They end up much lighter than the original because of them being made to slightly smaller dimensions, changing from spruce to EWP, and eliminating excess wood on the long side away from the bridge.

2. A lot of thicknessing comes off the bass and the corner of the panel. I use Spruce. Often most pianos leave their panels much too thick. So more can come off than people realize. I would say that I am probably in ballpark of SS diaphragmatic panel but I leave my treble portion thicker than they do. At the end of the video was a Steinway M soundboard and it too weighed 15lbs.

3. I use the old root of the bridge and lately have been recapping with hickory. Yes it's a little heavier (but not much) than maple but it's worth it. WAY worth it.

I honestly don't see the need to itemized the weight of everything as the final weight difference says it all.


WILLIAM:   You have not offered numbers for the panel in terms of thickness and tapering for both the original and the new.  I suggested this tool to you as a means of readily and quickly measuring thickness.  www.magicprobe.net Pretty interesting electronic thickness gauge.

ME:  Very nice tool and I appreciate the awareness of it. Thank you.

WILLIAM:   In the Piano World discussion from which this subject derives, you were less than careful about certain claims.  Your rib material of choice these days is Eastern White Pine, which appears to be an excellent substitute for Sugar Pine.  They both weigh about the same - the average dried weight (ADW) for both is 25 lbs.  The Eastern White Pine is a bit stronger, the MOE of EWP is 1,240.000 and the MOE of Sugar Pine is 1,190,000 lbs per square inch, the EWP is 1.04 times stronger.  You compared the EWP to Sitka Spruce, saying that the Spruce is much heavier.  With an ADW of 27 lbs,  Sitka Spruce is heavier, at 1.08 times that of EWP. 

ME:   Thank you for verifying the data.

WILLIAM:  But Sitka Spruce is also stiffer than EWP (1.29 times so - the MOE of Spruce is 1,600,000).  If you are making a rib of the same stiffeness, the Sitka Spruce rib can be made smaller, so I think the actual weight differences would be negligible. 

 ME: True, but who said I am after the same stiffness?  If the fundamental frequency of a board is an indicator of stiffness (and I think it is) most soundboards have a fundamental frequency in the upper 50's in herz (New ones , probably a little higher). Older boards drop down to the low 50's. My boards are in the mid 40hz range when new. I did have to come up with a better way to set downbearing than what I was doing (aka gravagne) to get better results, but that is another story.

 WILLIAM: You actually claimed that the EWP is almost as light as Balsa.  That is far from true.  EWP is 2.78 times heavier than Balsa - the ADW of Balsa is only 9 lbs. compared to EWP at 25 lbs. 

 ME:  HAHA, you got me William!!  Actually, this was just me trying to describe something in a bad way.  I was just trying to describe that the EWP ribs were a lot lighter than spruce ribs.

WILLIAM: I will be going down to Jim's shop in the coming weeks to listen to his Titanium pins.  That will be interesting and fun. 

ME:  Yes, enjoy, I would like to visit him one day myself.  I've never been to Boston, but would like to spend a vacation there.

-chris

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time. 

I don't think it matters in terms of load bearing as long as you take into account the different MOE of each species. There are many very successful soundboard builders who use sitka ribs. Panel species, I believe, do have different characteristics-at least based on my own experience building boards with both sitka and white spruce. 

Is the weight difference significant enough to matter? I don't know. The specific gravity (density) varies between species. Sugar pine has a higher specific gravity than sitka spruce so since sitka is stiffer and therefore should have less total volume for the same load bearing properties a set of sitka ribs should be lighter than a set of sugar pine ribs. 

Is lighter always better?  The adage is light but not too light. What is too light?  I don't know but I'm skeptical about trying to reduce the conventional Steinway board by 3-8 lbs or whatever. Stiffness and mass both contribute to impedance characteristics. We want the board "responsive"
but not too responsive, Too responsive in this context means percussive to me. Making significant changes to the mass (or stiffness) should involve, in my opinion, significant changes to the scaling and probably the hammer as well. 

Since you're not relying on compression crowning the question of whether sugar pine ribs crown differently than sitka under compression is another question which I can't answer at this time.