I'll second that for Rons and the others say that in the actual display 06 display hall...the hall sucked the sound dry. I was very concerned until I hear the vast tonal arsenal on display one by one in the class room in a much better acoustic environment. I stood 25 ft from Rons Steinway, uh, I mean the Nossaman piano and the "voluminous" sound was apparent, actually kind of shocking in a ..."I've never had that flavor before". I had that experience with several others as well...different flavors.
The difference between the type of sound Will and others are describing is a preference. It really is power without noise and once you get it...yer hooked, especially when you hear monster music coming out of these things
Dale S. Erwin
www.Erwinspiano.com
209-577-8397
-----Original Message-----
From: William Truitt <surfdog at metrocast.net>
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Sent: Thu, Jul 15, 2010 2:55 pm
Subject: Re: [pianotech] soundboard grain angle vs "faux"stiffness
"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."
I'll vouch for Ron on that. When I heard his B in Rochester in "06, it
seemed a bit lacking in power up close and personal, but when I heard it
played on 6 rows back it didn't lack for power at all, along with buckets of
sustain.
Will Truitt
-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Ron Nossaman
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:18 PM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] soundboard grain angle vs "faux"stiffness
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20100715/430600fe/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC