jimialeggio wrote: > 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. Not all that significant, I think. The biggest difference I see is that my rib scales tend to be somewhat heavier than his. > 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. That's what we've been doing for years right here on the list. > 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. Specifics change. By board designs have evolved considerably over even the last three years. > 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? I don't see how. No more information will be exchanged than is offered in classes and in list discussion. We've all contributed to the knowledge pool in this respect. What we can't do, and what most folks want, is to supply a checklist of perfected universal instructions which, when applied either with or without an understanding of the physics behind them (preferably without), results in a best of all possible board when the last item on the list is reached and checked off. Assuming we all wanted to make such a universal no fault checklist available to everyone, we couldn't do it because it doesn't work that way. Why isn't there an automatic computerized string scaling program, where you press the button and the ideal scale is produced? Why are scales for the same piano produced by different people not identical? Because the decision tree isn't linear. There are a lot of experience based judgment calls and recursive backtracking inherent in these processes because there is so much interdependency among the component systems. Different folks have different approaches, and different priorities. After all the people years of accumulated experience in string scaling, why isn't there a huge and monstrously detailed and precise list of exactly what number change produces what effect? And string scaling is simpler than belly design, and in fact, a part of it. All the known concepts necessary for belly design have been rehashed here in public in considerable detail for years now. Those who were interested enough in it followed the discussions, burned the brain cells, and spent the considerable time and money integrating these concepts into a working reality of sorts. The fact that the individual resulting working realities are as close together as they are indicates to me that the basic information is good, and the overall approach is valid. We're already for the most part well past fundamental performance issues and into the realm of personal preferences. There will always be differing observation on details, because details vary. When everyone agrees on how, and by what method and tool to tune, we can start on the belly design checklist. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC