I have a question or actually more of a thought about the title. I've looked up some old threads here as well as on line articles etc and even other forums in order to satisfy a specific thought I was having. Firstly I found the terms are often loosely used all over the place in opinion and can even often be contradicting and confusing when using them in relation to each other.
The following is only speculation and thought on my part. I don't know if my thoughts are correct or not. The point is I am not dictating but just stating how/what I think about it.
It seems that most believe because a ski may be on the damp side, they conversely also refer to it as less lively and I think that makes sense. But I also found they often include that to mean less pop (or rebound) too. But I don't know if that is so correct. I mean I can understand damp and lively being sort of opposites but not for rebound (or pop). I must assume (until explained otherwise) that a ski can be damp yet still offer a lot of rebound and conversely a ski can be lively yet offer less.
I would not think just because a ski is damp (does well at absorbing vibrations and imperfections) that it then must automatically have to offer less rebound. Nor a lively ski (one that doesnt easily absorb) has to offer more rebound.
With todays technology for engineering the modern ski materials together in different percentages, shapes, sizes, etc... I would think its very possible to obtain a damper ski yet without loss to its ability to bounce quickly back after being distorted. Conversely I would then also think a livelier ski (one that feels the vibrations and imperfections) could also be made to have less rebound. I just don't think (for materials and the engineering of them) that they have to lose rebound affect in order to be better at absorbing vibration.
I would also think that a lot of rebound is also created or helped or obtained by the skier him/her self as well. There is also basic physics involved. As we ski we can certainly feel the forces at work especially as we turn that force from moving forward to sort of rebounding side to side. There has to be much more than just the ski at work here. Force applied in one direction results in force proportionally opposite. The forces ( or energy) built up and applied by the skier with good technique is there to be used and when done correctly at the right timing (for rebound) one will benefit from that energy (in form of rebound). As I was searching around for this topic I was thinking about this last paragraph and then also found something written fairly similar suggesting something similar and being no physics major it at least made me feel I was on to something for this part of the post.
Anyway for that part of the post or the rest - as said nothing dictated here but just some thoughts about it of which I may be vefry wrong. Its all just one of my self started debates I can often have in my own mind against myself when curiosity gets the better of me LOL
Whats your thoughts or facts and answers for any the above.