I would be reluctant to draw general conclusions about the sound of RC&S boards versus CC boards based on one example. Choices about rib scales especially will make differences in the overall sound. I continue to experiment with different rib scales and can attest to that. The two most recent examples I have are extremely similar in tonal character to good CC boards. Subtle differences might be attributed to the use of cut-offs, bass floats and/or hammer treatment in certain sections. Both these pianos (Steinways, A and M) are functioning extremely well with unadulterated Ronsen Bacon hammers which are pretty soft. I don't think were you to hear them without knowing what the method was that you would say that they were out of character for that particular maker except that many of the warts associated with typical CC boards have been remedied. Certainly differences are no greater than you find between CC boards that attempt to duplicate outcomes on pianos of the same model. A couple of people on the list have heard the pianos and I invite them to comment if they want to. I can't comment on the Schimmel experiment because there are many variables to consider and who knows what they did exactly. David Love davidlovepianos at comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of RicB Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:01 AM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: The Soundboard bit.. RC&S Hi Stéphane You see the thing is that no matter which way you put it, and no matter what argumentations come up or are used... the CC boards of the world take on a different tonal character then boards made otherwise. In point of fact, tho it is of some discomfort to those who wish to see the demise of the CC board, that very fact is used as at least half the argumentation for using RC & S boards. And, if that is not enough it only stands to reason that if the only significant (in any remote sense of the word) between a CC board and the RC & S board was simply a matter of structural integrity over time... then no manufacturer in their right minds ( or otherwise for that matter) would be making CC boards. Tho there is one smaller player on the scene making RC & S boards commercially for at least one model... there are examples of other companies that have experimented in this direction and gone back to CC variants citing unsatisfactory sound results as primary reasonings. Schimmel is a great example of this. Now before anyone gets all up in arms about that let me say that I have a different opinion of RC & S boards that I have heard. Nossamans piano in Rochester was a wonderful sounding instrument. But it was quite different in character then most other pianos I have heard. Its that difference that is at the heart of this whole subject. And for the life of me... I cant figure out why different builders cant just do what they do best and leave the criticisms of other's methods (which is bound by human nature to nearly always be overstated to a greater or lesser degree) aside. Ron Overs piano takes even another direction with his laminated boards. And his was IMHO best in show in Rochester, tho most of them I found quite impressive. My own first entry to the playing field soon to be installed, a laminate crowned board (perhaps the first of its kind), with ribs functioning primarily as a device to deal equalizing stiffness across the grain, with all that implies for transmission of vibration in all directions of the panel goes still in another direction. It uses stiffness along the grain and the strength created by the laminate process used to support crown. How it sounds remains to be seen... but I am of course hopeful. All of these and there are no doubt more, doubtless have their own particular merits, and their own particular weaknesses. I personally start turning off when someone starts declaring one or another particular approach to be inherently superior by far then all others. And that applies equally to any and all players on the field of soundboard makers no matter who they are and no matter how much respect I have for the actual work they do themselves. There is of course such a thing as shoddy workmanship... but thats a completely different subject matter then basic design principles. Cheers RicB ... Now, this relies on the fact that a wooden panel with no compression in it will transmit the vibrational energy of the string in a good manner (I suppose that is filtering the string input in an aesthetic pleasant way with enough efficiency to deliver wanted acoustic volume). Wouldn't a compressed pannel even do this better (even at the cost of some in time fragility)? I know, old question, but still much energy for talking about it, and always interesting to see how the thinking evolves around this. I still think, in a non authoritative manner, that the internal frictions in the board will be less when compressed than when not. Anyway, the proper resonant modes of the board will be higher in the compressed version, and the board vibrational response to string input will accordingly be more even all over the spectrum. Or not ? Best regards. Stéphane Collin.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC