David Love www.davidlovepianos.com >I never said more bearing was desirable. I said RC&S is more >tolerant of a broad range of bearing settings. I realize you said that I'm just after what optimizes soundboard response and at the moment I'm leaning in the direction of less bearing. >It depends on where, and when you look. The RC&S will likely >be more flexible in the bass, and stiffer in the treble. That >very control is one of the points. I don't think it's necessarily the RC&S part that makes the bass more flexible. The choice to float the bass is to compensate for the tendency for the bass to be less flexible because of the increased grain angle which is done to make the panel stiffer. While the solves the bass problem it still leaves the low tenor somewhat stiffer. >How much less mobile, and with how much bearing? The first question is whether with an RC&S board more bearing makes it less mobile. If we decide that it does and also that less mobility isn't desirable, you can then try and determine how to optimize the bearing for these designs. As I mentioned, I'm leaning in the direction of less bearing. The issue for me is in trying to determine what accounts for tonal differences (albeit subtle) that I hear between the current RC&S designs and CC boards and whether those differences are inherent to the process or the design (or both) and what the contributions of each are. I'm leaning in the direction of the design more than the process and have come to that conclusion from the various projects I've done in which many of the design elements that often accompany RC&S projects are eliminated. There are others around that I know of who do exactly that. They build boards with RC&S methods but make no other changes to the design: no cutoffs, original rib lengths and positions, no plate or bridge modifications, etc. They report perfectly good results though I have not heard these pianos and can't comment. As I continue to push toward a system that produces more hammer tolerance (or really tolerance of harder hammers) I find myself going in the direction I've outlined. There are situations in which having to use a soft hammer may not give the best results, such as in a concert situation where tonal requirements of some performance pieces may not be best served by a soft hammer or for a customer who wants the ability for the piano to produce a more violent upper dynamic end but yet possess the other benefits that RC&S designs offer. I'm not at all convinced that the two are mutually exclusive. David Love
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC