By all means. But then I dont think anyone is drawing conclusions based
on one sample... or even a very limited base of information to go on.
We've been at this for some 10 years now on this list and I've been
asking questions and gathering experience and information since I first
ran into these questions.
As for telling the difference between construction types. I think it is
an underestimation of the amazing thing that is the human ear to believe
we are not able to discern such differences. The new Petrof 210 design
is a great example of this. Of course more is involved then just the
soundboard panel itself... but the divergence from the classic Petrof
sound is unmistakable. Secondly... If one couldn't hear any difference,
then a very large part of the argumentation for using the RC & S board
falls away. Because if there is no discernible difference then they
could not possibly be more efficient, brilliant, or the rest of it that
we hear proponents claiming. Please understand... this is not meant as
a provocation... its just a logical consequence. One simply can not have
it both ways. Either there is a difference... or there isnt. I think
the greatest amount of evidence on hand speaks towards there being a
difference.... and that is a GOOD thing. For all concerned I would think.
I would like to point out also that in factories where this kind of
experimentation goes on... you are dealing with people who's ears and
equipment are very much refined to listening to exactly the kinds of
things that give their instruments the characteristic sound they are
afters. A Sauter is a Sauter for example... and has nothing to do with
either the Steinway sound or the Schimmel sound or anyone else's sound.
Tho the general public at large and most of the technical community are
not able to directly discern and identify such differences... they do so
in indirect fashion. And this can be shown by doing statistical studies
designed to reveal such information. Or looking at what the masses
choose for that matter. In any case, I dont think we should be
underestimating these kinds of things in the desire to reach already
decided upon conclusion. In anycase these kinds of points are very
difficult to <<prove>> one way or the other. Personally, my beliefs are
based on a cumulative of many facts out there in the world. But I will
be the first to admit my position is belief based when it comes right
down to it. On the other hand I've yet to see anyone put any
qualitative facts on the board that are pertainant to the subject
matter. At least beyond a few vague statistics things.
Cheers
RicB
I would be reluctant to draw general conclusions about the sound of RC&S
boards versus CC boards based on one example. Choices about rib scales
especially will make differences in the overall sound. I continue to
experiment with different rib scales and can attest to that. The
two most
recent examples I have are extremely similar in tonal character to
good CC
boards. Subtle differences might be attributed to the use of
cut-offs, bass
floats and/or hammer treatment in certain sections. Both these pianos
(Steinway's, A and M) are functioning extremely well with unadulterated
Ronsen Bacon hammers which are pretty soft. I don't think were you
to hear
them without knowing what the method was that you would say that
they were
out of character for that particular maker except that many of the warts
associated with typical CC boards have been remedied. Certainly
differences
are no greater than you find between CC boards that attempt to duplicate
outcomes on pianos of the same model. A couple of people on the
list have
heard the pianos and I invite them to comment if they want to. I can't
comment on the Schimmel experiment because there are many variables to
consider and who knows what they did exactly.
David Love
davidlovepianos at comcast.net
www.davidlovepianos.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC