erwinspiano at aol.com wrote: > but I'd call it definitely at the light end of RC&S, which I think is > why the hammer line deviation made a tonal difference. You have 16 ribs > here, on a 7-1/2' piano. That, I can't explain, unless it's weight. Those are wide ribs. I stiffened my boards up considerably from the first attempts to make them more hard hammer tolerant, and it worked. Some folks want more bite than Bacon felt Ronsens provided. The lighter builds sounded nasty with harder hammers than that. > * * *Adding two more ribs to the set with the all the ribs spaced > differently would be adequate to support the treble. Why that > would prefer a less stiff hammer is a bit of a question. Nick and I have > often asked each other how stiff is too stiff?* As long as the assembly's light, and can bend at the perimeter, I'm not altogether sure it can be built too stiff. > * Experience to me says, the stiffer the board the stiffer/denser the > hammers need to be. The more flaccid the board the less dense hammers. Mine too, and still does. > SO your experience* _is_* that adding two more ribs to a S&S C set > somehow defeats the need for a level of hammer stiffness I am > uncomfortable with. Nope. I'm saying I found I could still use a soft hammer, but gained the potential to use a slightly harder hammer. I'd still call Renner Blues and Abels way out of the ballpark for my builds. > *Meaning ribs less tall or not as long because of a fish??* Not as long. Length, as apposed to depth or thickness. Shorter=stiffer and lighter, automatically. > Beats fighting the original though, don't it? > *Yes and the the attractive sound that Steinways are know for is > enhanced focus and clear and folks just love it. Makes my Day to be sure > and certain.* My day's a long way from made then. I've still got plenty to learn. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC