David, I wrote my first reply to this in a bit of a hurry and left out a comment I think needs making. I think if you read through the posts written on this thread you will will see that 1:) I reported that Steinway Hamburg evidently uses some degree of rib crowning, quering just how much. 2:) Both Terry, Ron N, and then myself pointed out that this in no way dictates a lack of compression crowning. 3:) In fact the Hamburg boards are compression crowned, despite the presence of crowned ribs and modereate EMC levels prior to glueing the ribs. And once again. I have never made any claims as to which kind of panel sounds better then the others. I have in fact adamently argued against such claims made by others based on the subjective nature of preferences. What I have stated is that the differing methods are bound to have differing acoustic results, and that all methods can be used succesfully and indeed have been for well over a hundred years now. I did not wish to solicitate any renewed discussion about the viability of any method, or what is so-called <<better>>, or any kind of manuvering around who has stood for what. My report was simply for yours and anyone else who may be interested edification. Cheers RicB ---------- David Love writes. I ask because you had stated previously that it was your opinion that compression crowning was necessary to achieve the type of tone that you found to be the most to your liking. You cited Hamburg Steinway as one example of that. Since it turns out that Hamburg Steinway is, as you report, not compression crowning any more than the current group of rib crowned and supported designers, I was just wondering if your sentiments with respect to compression crowning as a requirement for superior tone production remained unchanged. David Love
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC