Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum original soundboard recrowning

We have been recrowning soundboards since 1980. Using steam to unglue them from the case intact! Followed by the ribs, buttons, and bridges, ect. Then the panel is rejoined,using the original ribs. The SB is pressed just like you would with new wood,and of course the bridges are reattached. We learned this from a luthier and applied this to pianos on a giant scale,the same way they repair fiddles. The word they use is adjustment. Adjusted for shrinkage. The only non-original parts are the dowling through the ribbs to the bridges,the finish and the bridge pins. And in some the bridge pins can be turned upside down. We have just completed a model C 1887 recrown #15. A 1913 M&H in a couple of months,recrown #16 and we are to begin an 1893 Steinway D this fall. Does anybody know of any other house that does this? Please let me know so we can share info,We would be very grateful, It has been a lonely road.

Richard, Good to see you here ...

I really enjoyed visiting your shop.

Sounds like a lot more work than making a new one. Also sounds like it has a LOT of potential pitfalls. Are you re-capping the bridges? If not, how do you account for bearing issues that are sure to be in evidence? Are you removing compression crushed wood before rejoining? Don't you have to use new wood to replace the inevitably damaged wood that caused the need for a replacement/repair in the first place?

Since fiddles do not achieve crown in the same way that pianos do, why would any of this apply to pianos?

I know this is done in Europe, but haven't had a satisfactory explanation as to why it is necessary, why it is a good idea and why it could possibly be a viable repair.

Perhaps you could find someone who specializes in Antique Restoration, rather than rebuilding. They might have some info to share. Historical Restoration involves keeping the instrument as original as possible, though I've yet to hear one that I thought was representative of what the piano sounded like when it was new. Too many things have changed structurally. I've heard a couple of reproductions that were probably accurate.

Inquiring minds want to know. I understand you've set your course on this and have invested great amounts of time and effort. I'd love to have a better understanding of why. The questions above are meant to provoke thought, not emotions. (Since it will likely be misconstrued).

This sounds very interesting and I look forward to reading more about it.

I don't challenge your claim and have no doubt that it looks good and sounds OK, as well. However, you need to be clear that your "restored" board is not the equivalent of a new board and for the work you describe, I have a hunch the cost to the consumer winds up in the same ballpark.

You see, the damage to the wood internally at the level of the cellular structure has not been dealt with. If it was a compression-crowned board, then depending on its history of exposure to high levels of humidity (likely in New England) over a span of up to a hundred years, that internal cellular structure will have been compromised.

Beyond that, you have the issue of board thickness. You certainly can't make it any thicker than it was before and it is possible that it was too thin in certain areas -- or at least, could benefit from greater than original thickness.

Does it matter? That may be up for determination. If you are turning a compression-crowned board into a non-compression-crowned board, then maybe not. But I still wonder . . .

Why?
Could you explain your rationale for doing this amount of work rather than using new wood to make a new board? I can see it as an impressive demonstration of woodworking craftsmanship, but I can't see the musical purpose of it. Violins are not compression-crowned and therefore the transfer of procedure doesn't really follow.

I did this to a Crown piano a number of years ago. This was before I began replacing boards. The amount of work involved is about the same. I would not do this again unless there was a vary specific reason to do so. If I did, I would replace the ribs and use a rib supported system. I think that would be the only way I could feel confident with the out come.
Bill

I have no idea what the "equivalent of a new board" would be other than one that looks good and sounds good. Nor would I know what "the damage to the wood internally at the level of the cellular structure" would be. If you cannot see it, and cannot hear it, how is it damaged?

Considering that none of us were alive when the instruments requiring historical restoration were built, there would have been no opportunity for any one of us to hear them when new.
That makes this a moot point.

Mr Fox:Remember the question was to help me find one or others who do this method of repair. There is no one here in New England that I know of and I have been inquiring for years. Ed Swenson in upstate New York, not too far from here,in phone conversation a couple years ago, said they have been doing this for years,but did not identify any one.You are the second to mention europe. I figured with this vast network of comunication and exchange someone would know. I'm still waiting.
I will try to answer your questions as acurately as possible. I have never installed a new board. I dont know how much time that takes. This process has beome more rapid with each recrown. Some time in the near future we will know. One major cost factor is that we dont need any new material and we dont have to wait for years before it is ready. Of course the condition is a factor in time consumption,for example last year we did a M&H BB cir 1900. This SB had extensive damage; there were 193 screws, many of them did nothing. Who ever did that must have put them in just in case it might come loose. As opposed to this, an 1887 Mod C we have here now, had no screws or shims. This went much faster and required far less time. As for pitfalls? What do you mean? What pitfalls? Compression damage? I have not found any evidence of crushed wood at least in the ones we have done. This seems to be a phenomenon in the last 30 to 40 years or so. And as to the spruce we use to make repairs, we steam apart junk pianos. I have enough beautiful wood- a seemingly endless supply. This wood matches so well we often have to point out where it is. How this is like a violin repair? I was referring to the method of SB disassembly and the relieving of acumilated shrinkage stress distorting the shape of the top of the fiddle. In a piano the SB looses its crown. We have found these old SB's to be almost an inch smaller perpendicular to the grain, longditudinally almost none.Why is it a good idea? There are a few, It is extremely stable, having shrunk as much as it has, how much more will it shrink? especially with the climate controll systems we have today. It is genuine to the manufacturer,and to say that it superior to new wood,well if you hear the clarity and amazing power then listeners can judge for themselves. With this you can have softer hammers with no loss of volume.

Dan,

I think, possibly that you missed my point. Most likely because I didn't explain my train of thought very well. My point is that the good, high quality reproduction I've heard (new instrument built as closely as possible the same method and materials as the original was built, in this case a fortepiano) sounds far different than historical preservations of the same period instruments. The historical preservations never sounded as good or worked as well. Perhaps my miscommunication is the result of using the word "restoration" when I should have said "preservation".

IOW's, A new instrument built with new materials vs. an old, worn out, instrument patched up the best it can be without replacing the old worn out parts for the sake of historical authenticity. In that context, would you still consider that a "Moot" point?

Richard:

If it works, the method must have some merit. I don't know much about the subject but enjoy reading posts about it. I wish there were two of me so I could get into rebuilding. Then I would know more. I wonder how much would have to be steamed apart on an old upright.

I see the loss of crown as a tuning stability problem first and a tone problem second. Since this seems localized to where the loss of crown actually is, in my limited experience, (at the treble break) I have to wonder about the claims of cellular destruction being the death knoll for a soundboard.

Welcome Aboard!

I don't see loss of crown as a stability problem. If anything it would help stability... a collapsed board would have less movement with humidity swings.

A traditional sound board gets its structure by having the board dried down to shrink it and then having the ribs glued on. The board tries to return to its original size but can not because the ribs won't allow it and the result is a arched panel. This is a self-supporting structure (it does not need the rim of the piano for support) relying on the compression strength of the wood. A sound board looses its crown when the compression rises above the woods elastic limit. This is when cellular destruction happens. Cracks in a board are the easy signs of this. I know of no way to determine how much damage is in the rest of the board and that is why I prefer to replace a board that has lost its crown.

Bill:

I should have said that I see a lack of downbearing, as caused by a loss of crown, as a tuning stability problem first. Then the slightest movement of the borad changes the tension on the srings a great deal more than if there had been adequate downbearing to begin with.

Jeff,
I don't quite understand your reasoning. A compression sound board gets all of its structure from humidity. This structure/compression is what the down bearing is pressing against. When a compression board has failed it no longer has the strength to resist the downward push of the strings resulting in little or no down bearing. Humidity swings would have less influence on tuning because the down bearing has a smaller range of movement (worse case no movement).

Does that make sense?
Bill

Bill:

I look at it this way. When you hang the first wet sock on a clothes line the percent of tension increases on the clothes line much more than when the 12th sock is hung.

Ah, Jeff, in your earlier post, you were talking of increments of "movement" (i.e. displacement) of the soundboard. But now, you're talking of adding bearing in increments of mass (pressure). You see, the twelfth sock doesn't deflect the washing line by nearly as much as the first one...

At zero bearing, very little mass (pressure) will result in a displacement, but in little change of tension. At a high bearing, more mass is needed per unit displacement, but also results in a higher change of string tension.

At least, that's my understanding, and I agree with Bill that the situation is actually most stable (in terms of string tension) at zero bearing.

Mr. Deutschle. We never did this to an upright, but It would be the same procedure as any other that we have done. Again as in all piano SB's, Shrinkage is the problem. The crown is collapsing, and the string bearing is propably neutral, and in many cases the bridge is actually lower than the string plane, it could have negative bearing. Some positive crown can be gained by loosining the ribs from the board and forcing the board outward a little, and simultainously gluing the rib's back to the panel. But the string tension must be relieved first. Good luck.

Sounds like a great idea to me.
I feel that when someone pulls out , (say a Steinway soundboard) and dose a great job making and installing new copy of the original soundboard it's still not a Steinway soundboard even if it's exactly like the original one.
If you can get the original board to sound great again then you can say it's the original Steinway soundboard.
Look at Stradivarius Violins, replace the front, what would happen to the value.
I wouldn't be surprised that soundboards made from old soundboard wood would sound great and be more stable than a new soundboard.

And to "you people" who make soundboards. I'm not saying in anyway that you don't make a great soundboards, I'm just saying that if Stewie makes a board it's a Stewie board not a Steinway board.

Dan

Actually, a lot of Stradivari instruments had their tops replaced. It was a fad at one time. Now it is thought of as barbarity. The same thing may happen with replacing piano soundboards, particularly if we start getting more people who really understand tension as well as compression in wood.

Almost all Strads are not original. Original Strads were baroque violins, which are the province of specialists these days. Most violinists have moved beyond that design now. The modifications give them a wider range and allow a greater variety of music to be played on them.

The same thing happened with Flemish harpsichords. They were widened and redesigned with more strings. Double manuals were rebuilt to be expressive, rather than transposing.

Before I got into pianos I was into guitars and their repair. I have a Gibson J-45 that was built in 1954. When I got a hold of it the soundboard ribs were seperated in many different places. Without taking the soundboard off the guitar or even *gasp* replacing it I reglued them all. Some of them had to be completely removed before reglued. But the interesting thing is that the braces were all arched. That way when I reglued them the arch returned in the soundboard. Richard, When you are removing a soundboard do you have to inject the steam with a hollow needle or can you just apply the steam to the area with a wand or something?

Thanks, -Daniel