The Soundboard bit.. RC&S

[RicB]

Hi Stéphane

You see the thing is that no matter which way you put it, and no matter 
what argumentations come up or are used... the CC boards of the world 
take on a different tonal character then boards made otherwise. In point 
of fact, tho it is of some discomfort to those who wish to see the 
demise of the CC board, that very fact is used as at least half the 
argumentation for using RC & S boards.  And, if that is not enough it 
only stands to reason that if the only significant (in any remote sense 
of the word) between a CC board and the RC & S board was simply a matter 
of structural integrity over time... then no manufacturer in their right 
minds ( or otherwise for that matter) would be making CC boards.  Tho 
there is one smaller player on the scene making RC & S boards 
commercially for at least one model... there are examples of other 
companies that have experimented in this direction and gone back to CC 
variants citing unsatisfactory sound results as primary reasonings.  
Schimmel is a great example of this.  Now before anyone gets all up in 
arms about that let me say that I have a different opinion of RC & S 
boards that I have heard. Nossamans piano in Rochester was a wonderful 
sounding instrument.  But it was quite different in character then most 
other pianos I have heard.  Its that difference that is at the heart of 
this whole subject.  And for the life of me... I cant figure out why 
different builders cant just do what they do best and leave the 
criticisms of other's methods (which is bound by human nature to nearly 
always be overstated to a greater or lesser degree) aside.  Ron Overs 
piano takes even another direction with his laminated boards. And his 
was IMHO best in show in Rochester, tho most of them I found quite 
impressive.  My own first entry to the playing field soon to be 
installed, a laminate crowned board (perhaps the first of its kind), 
with ribs functioning primarily as a device to deal equalizing stiffness 
across the grain, with all that implies for transmission of vibration in 
all directions of the panel goes still in another direction.  It uses 
stiffness along the grain and the strength created by the laminate 
process used to support crown.  How it sounds remains to be seen... but 
I am of course hopeful.

All of these and there are no doubt more, doubtless have their own 
particular merits, and their own particular weaknesses.  I personally 
start turning off when someone starts declaring one or another 
particular approach to be inherently superior by far then all others.  
And that applies equally to any and all players on the field of 
soundboard makers no matter who they are and no matter how much respect 
I have for the actual work they do themselves. 

There is of course such a thing as shoddy workmanship...  but thats a 
completely different subject matter then basic design principles.


Cheers
RicB

    ...
    Now, this relies on the fact that a wooden panel with no compression
    in it
    will transmit the vibrational energy of the string in a good manner (I
    suppose that is filtering the string input in an aesthetic pleasant
    way with
    enough efficiency to deliver wanted acoustic volume).
    Wouldn't a compressed pannel even do this better (even at the cost
    of some
    in time fragility)?  I know, old question, but still much energy for
    talking
    about it, and always interesting to see how the thinking evolves around
    this.  I still think, in a non authoritative manner, that the internal
    frictions in the board will be less when compressed than when not. 
    Anyway,
    the proper resonant modes of the board will be higher in the compressed
    version, and the board vibrational response to string input will
    accordingly
    be more even all over the spectrum.  Or not ?

    Best regards.

    Stéphane Collin.