On 7/8/2010 1:31 AM, David Love wrote: > I think my rib > scales are a bit lighter than yours. That too might make a difference. Not > sure. As in all other aspects of piano work, RC&S is not a monolithic description of a single approach, ie, David's and Ron's experience of the tonal effects of their designs intersect but also deviate in some significant ways. If there were a way that would not jeopardize proprietary info, I think it would be highly useful to collect and sort through the varied experience of people working their own approaches to the RC&S concept to confirm common trends and combine the communal intelligence. For instance, I think I have a reasonable idea how Ron defines stiffness throughout the scale, but I'm completely guessing on Davids definition of stiffness. I get the feeling David's radii are larger than Ron's, and calculated rib loading is less than Rons. Without specifics though the communication is somewhat limited. It there were some way to share specifics(and I'm not sure how to do this without giving away proprietary stuff) I think the combined empirical intelligence which could come out of these discussions could be substantial. I'm not sure what I'm asking for here...I wonder if it would be useful and instructive to design a panel discussion specific to RC&S for the convention? Since it would clearly be defined as specific to RC&S concepts, and moderated to keep on that topic, we could avoid the head butting regarding CC vs RC&S ad nauseum and focus on combining the knowledge & experience of RC&S concepts which have been collecting independently in our shops. Jim I -- Jim Ialeggio grandpianosolutions.com 978- 425-9026 Shirley, MA
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC