Typo correction in red. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:35 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] --Centering the bridge--was S&S something I suppose I should have expected that type of response. No, as far as you're concerned it doesn't have to make sense to me but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't either in theory or in practice. Since you don't wish to elaborate on it I will since I've been involved in these designs now for several years. The biggest danger with this design ideology (and I use that word purposefully) that you advocate, in my experience, is the tendency for the assemblies to get too stiff and maybe too light. Beefed up ribscales, increased grain angles, reduced soundboard areas, lack of diaphragmizing in an attempt to produce a more controlled output has a very serious potential downside when things go too far. That downside is excess stiffness and a lack of mobility of the assembly overall. While the tone has a great deal of control, inability to "overdrive" it, as you have noted (for what that's worth) the net tonal effect can be, if one is not careful, an *overly* controlled sound, lacking power, expressiveness, with too much development of high partials (or a lack of filtering of high partials in the lower end of the piano), making for tenor and bass sections that end up requiring an ultra soft hammer to do the filtering that the assembly under ordinary circumstances would do. In the worst case the high treble produces jangles which, admittedly can be reduced to some degree with mass loading. I'd prefer they weren't there (the alternative, btw, is not a failed killer octave). Having to have a very soft hammer has other implications in terms of the piano's overall tonal range. Fortes that are attack centered are limited. Any attempt to push up the hardness of the hammer in order to achieve that results in the overdevelopment of high overtones, knocking, and the piano can start to sound clangy. Limitations at the forte end limit the piano's output for many types of music and for many pianists. That's my experience and I've either built or seen enough of them to have an informed opinion. Some, admittedly, were my own fault at first thinking that the problem was that the assemblies were not stiff enough. Exactly wrong. Having moved now in the other direction it has become very obvious. Does that mean I'm advocating doing away with the RC&S design totally? Not necessarily. But you can have too much of a "good thing". The fixation on eliminating compression, reduced stress dynamics in the assembly itself, sustain at the expense of attack and extending those concepts to the rest of the piano has the downside risk of reducing the overall tonal range of the piano, not enhancing it. In the extreme it can produce some tonal unpleasantness. That does make sense to me and I've built enough boards experimenting with different iterations to feel more confident in that conclusion. Does it make sense that you can just keep pushing up the stiffness factor without paying a price somewhere? Of course it doesn't. You don't get something for nothing. It's a balancing act. If you beef up the rib scale, increase the grain angle reduce the soundboard area creating a design that is without any consideration of the panel's presence, then you'd better be using a thinner and more flexible panel as if it really isn't there, or at least less so. Clearly I'm not sold on the design ideology as you've presented it. While it can produce a pleasant musical quality I find it limiting. And by limiting I mean not appropriate for the range of music that has been composed for the instrument. The alternative, just to be sure we don't go there, is not a failed killer octave, collapsed, distorted, mess. There is some middle ground. So, yes, I think there is a real reason to consider compensatory features when you engage in many of your design ideas the way you've described them. Given the features that you suggest, a thinner and fully diaphragmized panel is where I would start. And I'm not sure I'd stop there. I guess you're not preaching to this choir. All, IMO, of course. David Love <http://www.davidlovepianos.com> www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: <mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org> pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [ <mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org> mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Ron Nossaman Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:23 PM To: <mailto:pianotech at ptg.org> pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] --Centering the bridge--was S&S something On 5/29/2012 8:26 PM, David Love wrote: > Ron: > > I've never quite understood why you (and others who do designs similar > to > you) *don't* fully diaphragmize the panel. >It doesn't make sense > to me. It doesn't have to make sense to you. I haven't found it necessary, and look at all that time I save to waste on installing my cheap perimeter bolts! Eventually, I'll try it again and reverify whether or not it's worth the trouble and time. Ron N -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20120529/8a7b5183/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC