Spot on explanation of what physics does to sound boards. The big question that I have never had answered is why do plucked string instruments have the string tension carried by the soundboard itself, instead of having the string tension carried by the body of the instrument via a tailpiece the way violins, violas, cellos and string basses do?
A. John Mardinly, Ph.D., P.E. > On Jun 29, 2019, at 7:30 AM, Matthew Daillie <dail...@club-internet.fr> wrote: > > Unfortunately things don't work that way. Generally over time the tension of > the strings pulls the bridge towards the neck so that its front edge sinks > and this is what causes the bulge in the soundboard you refer to. It's true > that if you have no dishing, this immediately makes the lute virtually > unplayable (which is another reason I like 6 mm or so of dishing). I don't > think there is any evidence (or physical explanation I can think of) to > suggest that a flat soundboard is going to be more subject to this phenomenon > than one with dishing, it's just that the latter has more leeway. Different > soundboards seem to react in different ways. I have a lute which is over 20 > years old which has virtually no sign of the bridge sinking whereas a more > recent lute might show signs of a sinking bridge within a very short period > of time. I suspect that very thin soundboards are more prone to the problem. > > Some late baroque lutes had convex bars between the rose and the bridge which > might have been intended to try to limit the phenomenon of the bridge sinking > over time. The corresponding bridges would have been convex. > > Best, > > Matthew > > > Le 29 juin 2019 à 15:10, r.turov...@gmail.com a écrit : > >> Physics, I suppose!)) >> The pull of the strings deepens the scoop, rather then lifting the bridge. >> >> The non-concave soundboard also carries a large risk of becoming convex, and >> I’ve seen a few lutes with a nasty bulge between the bridge and the rose. >> RT >> >> ==== >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__turovsky.org&d=DwIF-g&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=VLPJ8OE-c_C6joGeE1ftlvxMmQPq9N6mpKZONBRt90E&m=TxTHlNx7S7F0d7aH7twn3ZPr_Z_A5ejno6SMAbNAMTg&s=5qStC4kl5hdO4kHFK-vbRQrSScNMXUWkysplkRBmIXM&e= >> >> Feci quod potui. Faciant meliora potentes. >> >>> On Jun 29, 2019, at 8:18 AM, Matthew Daillie <dail...@club-internet.fr> >>> wrote: >>> >>> What is the reasoning behind that claim? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> >>>> Le 29 juin 2019 à 12:37, r.turov...@gmail.com a écrit : >>>> >>>> The scoop keeps the action stable, and that’s its main function. >>>> An axe without the scoop is a disaster to be avoided. >>>> RT >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> To get on or off this list see list information at >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cs.dartmouth.edu_-7Ewbc_lute-2Dadmin_index.html&d=DwIF-g&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=VLPJ8OE-c_C6joGeE1ftlvxMmQPq9N6mpKZONBRt90E&m=TxTHlNx7S7F0d7aH7twn3ZPr_Z_A5ejno6SMAbNAMTg&s=5ns_CI1pOIe-Yf6KhW_c5w3E2emmdujqVoFxPGAVG6g&e= >>> >> > > >
