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
Well I meant that more as a question than a statement.  One thing that
does interest me is how CC vs RC&S methods influence, either in design
or execution, the relationship between mass and spring rate and how that
might relate to proper hammer matching.  Which system,  for example,
tends to have a thicker panel?  It seems that the CC panel is generally
thicker in the center and tapered toward the rim whereas the RC&S panel
is slightly thinner and more uniform in thickness (except maybe around
the bass perimeter).  Is that correct?  Might not the difference in mass
distribution of the CC panel explain differences in hammer matching and
potentially some tonal differences?  It seems that the CC panel requires
a much denser and possibly less flexible hammer than the RC&S board (at
least in my experience).  Whether the tone production potential between
the two with appropriate hammers is net/net, is something I can't really
answer but do wonder about.  The subject might point to some
differences.
 
David Love
davidlovepianos@comcast.net 
-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On
Behalf Of Erwinspiano@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 7:10 PM
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Subject: Re: More CC vs RC questions was RE: Killer Octave & Pitch Raise
 
In a message dated 2/16/2005 12:19:41 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
davidlovepianos@comcast.net writes:
effect of softer hammer, softer panel, might produce a tone that while
having adequate power (loudness) might not have the balance of partials
to make the tone interesting, lively, expressive, you choose your
favorite word.  So control of the panel's EMC, while seemingly not as
critical for purposes of achieving stiffness in the assembly overall,
might still be very critical in order to achieve a certain tonal
balance.
   David
  I think this is possible & is my thinking. When panel compression
exsists some dynamic tension between the rib being bent up a bit by the
panel compression & the rib wanting to pull it back down creates
continual static & dynamic reactive force. Perhaps some of this is
healthy & building boards  attempring to shape & mold certain
characterisitcs is very interesting.
 I've been logging all the data per given board to keep track of the
design parameters & then draw a conclusion based on the sound I get. Ie
original rib width,height,length. New rib crown width ,new length, Panel
thickness , tapering ,where & how much. Rib tapering etc.
 I installed the Mason board with cut-off, fish and altered rib heights
& widths, weds. & when the clamp came off in the morning & it already
had a very healthy & vibrant boom/rap even though the tight bond surely
isn't thoroughly cured. This is not usually the case. 
  Dale
 

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/74/b7/e6/44/attachment.htm

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