More on soundboard crown

[David Love]

While I can't, from either a position of technical expertise or experience,
contribute to the argument on soundboard design.  As someone reading this
discussion with great interest, I would like to see the points argued out. 
I could do without the digressions, but I don't mind them as long as the
technical points continue to be elucidated.  I'm sure there are many
examples in history of industries hanging onto certain design concepts too
long for various reasons--successful marketing not being the least.  If we
are at a point in time in which the compression crowned board is being
slowly replaced by the rib crowned board as the industry standard, I, for
one, want to hear all the arguments.  I can say that from my position, the
arguments for rib crowning are quite compelling.  There is certainly ample
evidence of CC soundboard failure to seek an alternative.  For me too, the
ever growing list of those who use and continue to develop this design
format, not only in terms of number, but in terms of background and
knowledge, is enough for me to take notice.  This is not to denigrate those
who are quite capable with their skill to produce a good sounding CC
soundboard.  However, it seems analogous to the individual who doesn't want
to give up the family heirloom even though it's proving inadequate to the
task for one reason or another.  While we don't hesitate to point them in
the right direction in terms of performance over sentiment, are we not in
danger of making the very same mistake by our inability to separate
ourselves from our own biases, either conscious or unconscious?  I say,
please continue!

David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net


> [Original Message]
> From: Ron Nossaman <RNossaman@cox.net>
> To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Date: 8/14/2003 9:43:50 AM
> Subject: Re: More on soundboard crown
>
>
> >I didn't mean a battling elk is incapable of intelligent exchange.  I
merely
> >meant that it's not wise to converse with an elk engaged in battle.
>
> Why not? The point is that it wasn't a battle as far as I was concerned.
It 
> was a technical point that I was trying to illustrate that it looked to
me 
> John was trying to sidestep and belittle. I wanted the point to be made,
if 
> not acknowledged, for my own peace of mind because I think it's valid. I 
> can only hope someone will read it for content and get the point. I don't 
> have a problem with rational and honest contributions or questions coming 
> into a technical discussion. I do object to obvious counterproductive 
> attempts to disrupt or divert the discussion before all the points on the 
> current table are covered. A little ranting and goofiness is fine and 
> sometimes entertaining as long as the technical points aren't abandoned
as 
> a result. When that is allowed to happen, no one learns a bloody thing
and 
> all the effort expended up to that point is wasted. My general impression 
> is that this isn't important to more than a handful of people on the
list, 
> and I find that disturbing.
>
> Maybe you can explain to me how this works, because it's always mystified 
> me. Why are these discussions as read by others perceived purely as ego 
> displays and general irascibility, with a near total disregard to the 
> technical points made? I don't get it. I've heard all my life, and read 
> here much too often, that it's not what is said, but who says it, and the 
> way it's presented. Frankly, this scares hell out of me, because it means 
> that these people aren't thinking for themselves and apparently have no 
> intention of starting. The content and exchange of the best information
we 
> can get is the ONLY thing that's important here, isn't it? If we're not 
> here for the content, then why? I surely don't know. Maybe I'm on the
wrong 
> list.
>
> If this offends anyone, I apologize, but this is how I see it.
>
> Ron N
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives