This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment I wouldn't say that I'm unhappy with an RC&S board. The purpose of this thread (forget the meanderings) was to identify tonal differences if any. I've rarely heard an upper end (capo sections) in terms of clarity, sustain and sparkle achieved on a CC board that I have heard on an RC&S board and maybe never on a NY Steinway. But whether that's due to the crowning method or the modifications such as cut-offs, treble fish, or the style of ribbing (probably both) I can't say. I don't see any real difference in the bass that can't be explained by scaling choices. In the tenor section, again, it's hard to separate it out. I'm working with cut-off bars whereas most CC's that I know are not. That does make a difference in terms of clarity and focus of tone. Lack of distortion when pushed and uniformity through the scale may be a difference between the two systems. But not a negative and I don't think that uniformity through the scale limits the expressive quality of the piano. From my last posting I have found that the most recent board did not sound good with a Steinway lacquered hammer. This was a surprise to me as I've usually been able to get a good sound with them (assuming a good piano). It took some work to find the right hammer. As I posted, it needed something different and when I found the right combination (and the board seemed picky about which hammer went on it), the tone was very satisfying. That's not to say it's not different. The fact that I couldn't get the sound I wanted with a NY Steinway hammer suggests that they are different. Why that should be the case, I don't know. One thing it does demonstrate clearly to me is that the mating of hammer to assembly is critical. We (I) tend to fall into habits about the hammers we like or the ones that have produced the tone that we wanted in the past. We then make assumptions that the same hammer will do the same thing on another board. Often, that is not the case and running through the repertoire of hammer styles to find the best fit is clearly much more important than I thought. The jury is still out on differences. I don't see any reason not to build a RC&S board and there are many reasons to build one. But I am still learning to work with them to pull out what I want and, to be honest, they are also changing my view of the tonal possibilities on a piano. As always, there is reluctance, at first, to accept a changing view and I am no different that way. As I go through this process of reassessment, though, I have lots of questions that are beyond my knowledge bass. The builders of these pianos have been, I think, very good about sharing what they know and I appreciate it. There are still unanswered questions, but that's why we keep going, right? David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Erwinspiano@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:26 PM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: More CC vs RC questions was RE: Killer Octave & Pitch Raise Dave & all I was going to stay out of it but...I've been skimming & following this thread. Been busy. First David I think you're asking all the right questions About panel stiffness etc. Much of this is tonal difference is unquantifiable but apparently there are observable subjective tonal differences between compressed & more compressed panel assemblies. You have some experience with both ,So I ask you, it sounds like your not quite happy with the sound of the competely RC&S board as compared to a the best C.C. board or R.C. boards. If that's true then understand why your asking the questions. There's something missing that you like. Just a couple points. there has been some recent discussion as to the absorptive nature of spruce panels. Though it's the overall stiffness of the entire C.C. board system. Although sound travels fastest along the grain .i.e. approximate. 5000 ft per second it still travels plenty fast cross grains well.(3000 ish) not sure. I suspect (can't prove it.) but compressing the wood fibers at least some cross grain also makes the panel more reactive. Any time something is put under tension compression it gets more reactive to movement .ie.drum heads, strings of all kinds, beams under load & people under stress(grin). This one argument is why I believe that some compression is benificial to the sound of a system. The other is that all the best sounding C.C. board I heard had lots of compression & hence cracks. Even after compression set & some loss od crown they still sounded better than the one that escaped the factory without being suffiecently dry for the C.C. system to belly up. These had little crown or vitality & also no cracks but hey not much sound either. No it's not the whole equation but some of this makes intuitive & kinesthetic sense to me. The other reason I like very tight grain spruce is that I get the most lively sound with it & it isn't because I'm compressing it to death but that its denser material & has excellent impedance qualities in & of itself. JMHO. But I've done it enough times now to have a strong opinion about it. It's true as Ron O said , I may change my mind & you all have changed my mind plenty but I also have to go with what works in my evolutionary journey in the sound board biz. IN the long run only one broad & wide tonal results are going to make my ears & the clients happy & that's a piano that sings like a soprano with the biggest lungs you ever heard a color range any kindergartner could make a Picasso with. I think you hit the nail on the head. How stiff is stiff enough. That's is the question Nick Gravagne & I ask each other periodically & one were all asking right now. Some of us like the answers we've come up with even though they may vary some or a lot. We can't make sound boards last forever but we can make them sing way beyond our lifetimes & any technique moving away from a purely C.C. board will give a longer life with more predictability. At the end of the day we have to decide what were willing to live with and go with it. We should be able to to stick our heads in the piano & smile or go back to the drawing board. I prefer to smile. Good discussion. Dale Ps Dave Porritt, good thoughts I didn't want this discussion to dry up too quickly as I still have a few--at least--unanswered questions. So let's amplify this point a bit for my own clarification (forgive me, I'm a bit slow sometimes). It stands to reason that the uncompressed panel is less stiff than the compressed panel, I think we agree on that. The overall stiffness of the entire assembly (CC vs RC&S), however, is relatively the same because the ribs in the RC&S board are stiffer than in the CC board and the way the panel and ribs combine produce an overall stiffness measured in terms of the whole assembly. But if the panel in the RC&S board is somewhat less stiff than the compressed panel in the CC board how would you not expect that to have some effect on the tone? While the assemblies may both move up and down at the same rate, might the overall stiffness of the panel, as opposed to the overall assembly, have an effect, say, on which partials are damped and which are not and the balance of those? So if the slightly less stiff panel has a greater damping effect, then the perception would be a somewhat less lively or expressive, for lack of better words, tone. I guess that was a question. David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/1a/da/d3/c8/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC