Just to add here. It is sort of the board design or at minimum an interaction between the two. Certainly the design is a factor. I don't always change the hitch pin array on the RC&S boards that I do and whereas a CC board can tolerate a shorter backscale with relatively higher bearing, the RC&S board doesn't in that situation, or at least it doesn't sound as good as it could--I suppose it does "tolerate" it. Similarly, where a CC board doesn’t sound as good without adequate bearing, an RC&S board with a short backscale will sound better with minimal bearing, at least that's what I find. Bottom line, FWIW, I would recommend that if one is doing an RC&S board with traditional backscale lengths that the bearing should not be set in the traditional way. Only minimal bearing is required through the scale. (An adjustable plate mounting system is very helpful here.) With longer backscale lengths I've still found that less bearing is better, at least on the boards that I'm doing. However, it might be worth noting that I believe the weighting of our boards might be somewhat different. I think my rib scales are a bit lighter than yours. That too might make a difference. Not sure. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com That differs considerably from my findings. As long as the back scale is long, no tuned rear duplex, the difference between 0.3° and 1.5°+ is negligible tonally. These things aren't nearly as bearing critical as conventional boards. I've set the bass on a couple of pianos at near 0°, and increased it to about 1.5° with no apparent penalty. Likewise, I've set the tenor and treble at about 0.3° or less (near zero) and again at 0.75°-2° with little appreciable change in the sound, if any. With a short back scale, I would agree with your numbers. But that's the back scale, not the board design. My take. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC