This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Well I meant that more as a question than a statement. One thing that does interest me is how CC vs RC&S methods influence, either in design or execution, the relationship between mass and spring rate and how that might relate to proper hammer matching. Which system, for example, tends to have a thicker panel? It seems that the CC panel is generally thicker in the center and tapered toward the rim whereas the RC&S panel is slightly thinner and more uniform in thickness (except maybe around the bass perimeter). Is that correct? Might not the difference in mass distribution of the CC panel explain differences in hammer matching and potentially some tonal differences? It seems that the CC panel requires a much denser and possibly less flexible hammer than the RC&S board (at least in my experience). Whether the tone production potential between the two with appropriate hammers is net/net, is something I can't really answer but do wonder about. The subject might point to some differences. David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Erwinspiano@aol.com Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 7:10 PM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: More CC vs RC questions was RE: Killer Octave & Pitch Raise In a message dated 2/16/2005 12:19:41 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, davidlovepianos@comcast.net writes: effect of softer hammer, softer panel, might produce a tone that while having adequate power (loudness) might not have the balance of partials to make the tone interesting, lively, expressive, you choose your favorite word. So control of the panel's EMC, while seemingly not as critical for purposes of achieving stiffness in the assembly overall, might still be very critical in order to achieve a certain tonal balance. David I think this is possible & is my thinking. When panel compression exsists some dynamic tension between the rib being bent up a bit by the panel compression & the rib wanting to pull it back down creates continual static & dynamic reactive force. Perhaps some of this is healthy & building boards attempring to shape & mold certain characterisitcs is very interesting. I've been logging all the data per given board to keep track of the design parameters & then draw a conclusion based on the sound I get. Ie original rib width,height,length. New rib crown width ,new length, Panel thickness , tapering ,where & how much. Rib tapering etc. I installed the Mason board with cut-off, fish and altered rib heights & widths, weds. & when the clamp came off in the morning & it already had a very healthy & vibrant boom/rap even though the tight bond surely isn't thoroughly cured. This is not usually the case. Dale ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/74/b7/e6/44/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC