The Soundboard bit.. RC&S

[David Love]

Your points are so circular and contradictory I can't really follow them
other than to say it's clear that you have a bias toward more conventional
compression methods of crowning and seem to get very argumentative when it
comes to considering RC&S boards.  That's fine.  But I think you should
simply admit the bias rather than represent yourself as being open to new
ideas--you're not, not really.  My interest is in building the best sounding
pianos consistently.  I have no vested interest in what method that happens
to be.  I'm not sure what "proof" you are looking for.  The "proof" of the
pudding is in the tasting (should I coin that).  You build them, you listen,
you have other pianos in your shop, you compare, you build more, you listen,
you have other pianos in the shop, you compare, you go out in the field, you
listen, you come back to the shop and compare and when you are done you do
it some more.  When you begin to see consistent and predictable results,
that's proof enough for me.  You want a quantitative analysis of soundboard
performance as it relates to perceived tone with all other variables teased
out?  Good luck, not likely in my lifetime.  

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 3:51 PM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: The Soundboard bit.. RC&S

David.

    You can't argue both sides Ric. 

I am not.  It is not me who one the one hand claims difference in terms 
of response, efficiency, etc etc, and then turn around and argue that 
the difference between CC and RC & S is not more then any CC and any 
other CC. 

    You can't cite your one example of hearingan 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?

One that I know of.  And it was very different then any other piano 
sound I've heard. But that one experience is hardly the sole basis for 
my arguementation that different board construction methods will yield 
different sound responses.  I've been saying this for 7-8 years or so.

    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.

You include so many side issues to the topic out of the perspective of 
the discussion that it is of course impossible to answer.  Let me turn 
it around on you. Do you seriously purpose that a specific soundboard 
design is not an intregral part, a purposeful and planned part of the 
overall design of quality pianos ?  Do you seriously think you can so 
adequately copy the Sauter sound for example with and RC & S board so 
that the overall impression left by those that listen and choose that 
sound now will be the same ?  I have heard this claim before... and I've 
heard it discounted before.  And the one thing that keeps lacking in 
these kinds of claims is the demonstration that it is doable... the 
actual execution that shows the point to be true... or not.  And when 
this point is raised the answer is always the same... one resorts to  
"Why should anyone WANT to ?" (copy another sound).  Leaving the whole 
thing unsubstantiated but equally ferverently claimed.

Well, when it comes down to it... neither you or I can answer your 
questions above or the one I just put above.  So I go, as no doubt you 
do, on the information I have at hand and that which I can hunt down and 
that which I can observe. And I make as educated a guess as I can... 
which is no more or less then anyone else does. 

     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. 

And I say, as I have said before.... prove it.  Really... because if you 
do... then you catch the entire CC and RC world with its pants down.  
And you give them a manufacturing method that is cheaper, and easier to 
produce... and if all the stuff you say below is also true.... a virtual 
gold mine of predictibility, control, and longevity.  So by all means.

    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.  

Hey... go for it.  Please do.  Seriously.. I've said this a hundred 
times to you guys now.  If these claims are provable... even closely to 
provable... then you are offering the industry the most valuable 
contribution its had in a 100 or so years.

    David Love
    davidlovepianos at comcast.net

Sincere Cheers
RicB