You can't argue both sides Ric. You can't cite your one example of hearing an RC&S board at Rochester as being the evidence that they sound altogether different and then argue that no one is drawing conclusions based on one sample. How many have you actually heard? How many different iterations? How many CC boards have you heard that had different sounds? How do you know what to attribute those differences to? While I have no doubt that people can hear the differences between pianos, can you always tell what is responsible for those differences by just listening? Can you hear the thickness of the panel? The grain angle? Where the panel is thinned? The rib scale? The rim construction? The interplay between hammer, scale tension and soundboard design and discern how each of those contributes to the overall sound and to what degree? I know I can't and I've heard a fair number of boards of each type including hybrids, experimented with changes in scale, hammers, rib scale, panel orientation. I can say that there are formulas for RC&S boards that produce a sound that is completely within the range of what you would expect from a successful CC board. The one difference is that the RC&S process, in my experience, is much more predictable, controllable in terms of altering the design to suit one's own taste, less likely to produce failures in certain sections of the scale and they appears to be a sound argument for them being much more stable over time. There is no question but that you can produce an RC&S design that some may not like by virtue of the rib scale being either too light or too heavy or not balanced the way one might choose or not a good match for the string scale and/or hammers. But those things are more matters of choice rather than chance. Each board that I build or have built, as the case may be, convinces me more and more that RC&S is the way to go. That doesn't mean that there isn't still much work to be done to explore different variations on the basic design formula. As Ron N said, give me enough money that I don't have to worry about making a living anymore and I'm right there with him doing all the real research and providing real data that will further enlighten us on the subject. David Love davidlovepianos at comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of RicB Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 11:48 AM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: The Soundboard bit.. RC&S 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