The Soundboard bit.. RC&S

[Erwinspiano at aol.com]

RIc wrote

My  simple point boils down to different strokes for different folks. 
Until  someone can show a "quantitative analysis of soundboard 
performance as it  relates to perceived tone" as you put it.. or even 
something remotely akin  to that.. then no one has any business waving 
around their beliefs  as facts.
  RIc
   I completly agree about different strokes for  different folks.  If it 
sounds good, enjoy it.  If it's a grand  sounding CC board that will go flat in 
15 years but sounds great,..... enjoy it  till then. Is it the best design for 
longevity?.. Obviously...well not in my  opinion.. No.  Does it sound glorious 
for a season? Yeah baby! 
      My point will be that  many pianos sound really quite superior to many 
other pianos I  see.  The  question I always ask is.... why?  The answer  must 
be as usual.  It's many things.  But what  I have learned is, that it is 
design.   IS it scientific? ...NO.  Is it subjective?...Sure ...SO WHAT!  It's  
experience as well
  I do know the sound of my own boards & it is a  repeatable phenomenon. WHy? 
Design
  I don't know if it has to come down to any form of  belief but you & I both 
heard some amazingly different  sounding pianos in Rochester & it was 
prounounced  ALL GOOD.   Right?  I heard in fact no negatives. It was design...right 
down to Chris  Robinsons C.C. board which sounded amazing.
 I Look it is a fact that as technicians we have big ears  that keep growing. 
I think the ears of the technical community & musicians  who hear well are 
all the Scientific/ subjective indicators I personally need to  confirm the 
methods I may use to build a board.
  Yes I heard David Loves pianos as well.  His M is  by far a remarkable 
sounding instrument.  It touts all the best tonal  features of the original 
Steinway scale. It was by far one of the clearest  most powerful & musical M's  I 
have encountered.  The treble with  no weaks spots  floats on a sea of sustain.  
& the bass was huge.  Being that I haven't heard other Ms do this in 35 years 
 I can only draw  one conclusion.  It's the design. 
  His A also similarly had a treble very much like the  Overs quality of 
sound also floating on a sea of sustain.  Rarely have I  heard sustain this strong 
in the trebles in C.C. boards & but certainly  not the clarity and focus this 
one had.  Again it has to be design. 
  My friend,...I don't get it...... why is it that  this seems so difficult 
for you to accept or at least acknowledge? 
  I have said many times I will build a board for someone  any way they want 
it with the proper caveats about the plusses & minus  points of the design.
  Also one thing to consider when you hear manufacturers  speak is, that they 
are also looking for techniques that are less time  consuming. I assure you 
the type of rib design,fish,transition bridge,sweeping  cut-offs,beams, fanned 
rib scales etc.  all take waaayy more time and money  to accomplish and from a 
corporate point of view are detractors from the bottom  line. Honestly, if I 
were a corporation I probably wouldn't care if the design  of my soundboard's 
went much beyond 40 years as long as it sounded great for  most of that time.  
It's called planned  obsolescence
  You have added well to the discussion & I agree  with you.   It's been a 
good one.
  Merry Christmas
  Dale Erwin





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20061211/fd67d469/attachment.html