More CC vs RC questions was RE: Killer Octave & Pitch Raise

[David Love]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
I wouldn't say that I'm unhappy with an RC&S board.  The purpose of this
thread (forget the meanderings) was to identify tonal differences if
any.   I've rarely heard an upper end (capo sections) in terms of
clarity, sustain and sparkle achieved on a CC board that I have heard on
an RC&S board and maybe never on a NY Steinway.  But whether that's due
to the crowning method or the modifications such as cut-offs, treble
fish, or the style of ribbing (probably both) I can't say.  I don't see
any real difference in the bass that can't be explained by scaling
choices.  In the tenor section, again, it's hard to separate it out.
I'm working with cut-off bars whereas most CC's that I know are not.
That does make a difference in terms of clarity and focus of tone.  Lack
of distortion when pushed and uniformity through the scale may be a
difference between the two systems.  But not a negative and I don't
think that uniformity through the scale limits the expressive quality of
the piano.  From my last posting I have found that the most recent board
did not sound good with a Steinway lacquered hammer.  This was a
surprise to me as I've usually been able to get a good sound with them
(assuming a good piano).  It took some work to find the right hammer.
As I posted, it needed something different and when I found the right
combination (and the board seemed picky about which hammer went on it),
the tone was very satisfying.  That's not to say it's not different.
The fact that I couldn't get the sound I wanted with a NY Steinway
hammer suggests that they are different.  Why that should be the case, I
don't know.  One thing it does demonstrate clearly to me is that the
mating of hammer to assembly is critical.  We (I) tend to fall into
habits about the hammers we like or the ones that have produced the tone
that we wanted in the past.  We then make assumptions that the same
hammer will do the same thing on another board.  Often, that is not the
case and running through the repertoire of hammer styles to find the
best fit is clearly much more important than I thought.  
 
The jury is still out on differences.  I don't see any reason not to
build a RC&S board and there are many reasons to build one.  But I am
still learning to work with them to pull out what I want and, to be
honest, they are also changing my view of the tonal possibilities on a
piano.  As always, there is reluctance, at first, to accept a changing
view and I am no different that way.  As I go through this process of
reassessment, though, I have lots of questions that are beyond my
knowledge bass.  The builders of these pianos have been, I think, very
good about sharing what they know and I appreciate it.  There are still
unanswered questions, but that's why we keep going, right?
David Love
davidlovepianos@comcast.net 
-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On
Behalf Of Erwinspiano@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:26 PM
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Subject: Re: More CC vs RC questions was RE: Killer Octave & Pitch Raise
 
  Dave & all
  I was going to stay out of it but...I've been skimming & following
this thread. Been busy. First David I think you're asking all the right
questions About panel stiffness etc. Much of this is tonal difference is
unquantifiable but apparently there are observable subjective tonal
differences between compressed & more compressed panel assemblies. You
have some experience with both ,So I ask you, it sounds like your not
quite happy with the sound of the competely RC&S board as compared to a
the best  C.C. board or R.C.  boards.
 If that's true then understand why your asking the questions. There's
something missing that you like.
   Just a couple points. there has been some recent discussion as to the
absorptive nature of spruce panels. Though it's the overall stiffness of
the entire C.C. board system. Although sound travels fastest along the
grain  .i.e. approximate. 5000 ft per second it still travels plenty
fast cross grains well.(3000 ish) not sure.
   I suspect (can't prove it.) but compressing the wood fibers at least
some cross grain also makes the panel more reactive. Any time something
is put under tension compression it gets more reactive to movement
.ie.drum heads, strings of all kinds, beams under load & people under
stress(grin). This one argument is why I believe that some compression
is benificial to the sound of a system. The other is that all the best
sounding C.C. board I heard had lots of compression & hence cracks. Even
after compression set & some loss od crown they still sounded better
than the one that escaped the factory without being suffiecently dry for
the C.C. system to belly up. These had little crown or vitality & also
no cracks but hey not much sound either. No it's not the whole equation
but some of this makes intuitive & kinesthetic sense to me.
  The other reason I like very tight grain spruce is that I get the most
lively sound with it & it isn't because I'm compressing it to death but
that its denser material & has excellent impedance qualities in & of
itself. JMHO. But I've done it enough times now to have a strong opinion
about it.
  It's true as Ron O said , I may change my mind & you all have changed
my mind plenty but I also have to go with what works in my evolutionary
journey in the sound board biz. IN the long run only one broad & wide
tonal results are going to make my ears  & the clients happy & that's a
piano that sings like a soprano with the biggest lungs you ever heard a
color range any kindergartner could make a Picasso with.
  I think you hit the nail on the head. How stiff is stiff enough.
That's is the question Nick Gravagne & I ask each other periodically &
one were all asking right now. Some of us like the answers we've come up
with even though they may vary some or a lot. 
  We can't make sound boards last forever but we can make them sing way
beyond our lifetimes & any technique moving away from a purely C.C.
board will give a longer life with more predictability. At the end of
the day we have to decide what were willing to live with and go with it.
We should be able to to stick our heads in the piano & smile or go back
to the drawing board. I prefer to smile.
  Good discussion.
    Dale
 Ps Dave Porritt, good thoughts
   
I didn't want this discussion to dry up too quickly as I still have a
few--at least--unanswered questions.

So let's amplify this point a bit for my own clarification (forgive me,
I'm a bit slow sometimes).  It stands to reason that the uncompressed
panel is less stiff than the compressed panel, I think we agree on that.
The overall stiffness of the entire assembly (CC vs RC&S), however, is
relatively the same because the ribs in the RC&S board are stiffer than
in the CC board and the way the panel and ribs combine produce an
overall stiffness measured in terms of the whole assembly.  But if the
panel in the RC&S board is somewhat less stiff than the compressed panel
in the CC board how would you not expect that to have some effect on the
tone?  While the assemblies may both move up and down at the same rate,
might the overall stiffness of the panel, as opposed to the overall
assembly, have an effect, say, on which partials are damped and which
are not and the balance of those?  So if the slightly less stiff panel
has a greater damping effect, then the perception would be a somewhat
less lively or expressive, for lack of better words, tone.  I guess that
was a question.

David Love
davidlovepianos@comcast.net 
 

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/1a/da/d3/c8/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--