jimialeggio wrote:
> Absolutely....I personally will not tolerate the clang... but it is one
> of the most difficult parts of the tonal envelope to deal with without
> losing that "pop" that crisply starts the tone.
There doesn't seem to be a clear dividing line between pop and
clang, which seems to me to be a considerable part of the
problem. I'd love to hear that Chickering first hand. My
experience is that these boards are way more efficient than a
CC board, and produce a different tonal envelope with a given
hammer. I find a hammer that is borderline adequate to needing
hardener for a CC board, is too hard for RC&S. At some point,
voicing preferences come in. Here's what I think I'm hearing
on my boards. Something like Ray's Wurzen hammers produce an
attack that is sharp and loud, which doesn't blend well with
the "dwell" and decay. I find that if I can get that attack
down a bit (the usual shoulder work, followed by side needling
does something I really like) and extend it into the dwell,
the overall tonal envelope blends better and sounds much
better ("swell" <G>) to me. What you describe as high partial
chaos on the attack (I'd call it clang) goes away, and the
decay slope is less steep. All the power is still there, it's
just spread out farther into the envelope instead of being
concentrated into the impact. The down side is that the
pianist isn't getting smacked in the forehead with the
disproportionately huge attack spike, and perceives the piano
as lacking power. Out in the hall, however, I find this board
and voicing combination to carry at least as well as the
percussive attack on the CC board, and to my ear, has a richer
sound, stronger in low partials.
> The sound was such that I could physically feel it in my
gut, kind of
> like when I was a kid watching the 4th of july parade and the bass drums
> would go by...went right to the solar plexus it did. Powerful but in a
> comfortable and inviting way.
Surf... Thunder... Car stereos that pulverize bone... We seem
to have a built in affinity to low frequencies.
> One of the things that I've noticed about the local rc&s attempts is,
> that in general, what I've heard has a too complex and prominent
> collection of upper partials. Graphs of the contents of the sound
> envelope show fundamental, a strong showing, but a very heavy and
> complex collection of upper partials which, to the ear/mind makes it
> "seem" as if there is poor fundamental.
>
> My own bellies up to this point show similar tendencies.
My rib scales have gotten considerably stiffer over the years,
and this has helped. That, and voicing a slightly too hard
hammer to accommodate.
> This is why I'm particularly interested in other factors that are
> effecting the initial attack other than assuming that the rib scale is
> the only issue that is relevant. I am on board that it gives repeatable
> control over targeted spring, and will continue to commit my efforts to
> the refinement of that spring profile, but I'm also thinking hard about
> how the panel/bridge restricts that targeted rib spring in ways that I
> dont have a good handle on.
Panel compression has to be a factor. I think this has a lot
to do with assembly efficiency, and a low panel compression
assembly has a deeper vibrational excursion than a high panel
compression assembly that won't go below it's "at rest"
position. I don't see any way this isn't a factor. I suspect
that if you raised the panel compression level in one of your
boards (assembled at, say, 5%MC), the hammer hardness
tolerance would go way up. It wouldn't be an RC&S board then,
but should sound and react more like everything else out there.
> Still learning
Everyone who's interested is. Slowly, but I think we're
gaining ground.
Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC