I think clang is a harsh attack that excites upper partials in the lower registers of the instrument whereas pop is am attack more fucussed on lower partials. Clang is more likely to occur in assemblies that don't adequately filter out higher partials in the lower registers. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com 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. > 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