The Soundboard bit.. RC&S

[David Love]

I appreciate Dale's comments on the pianos.  I must give credit where credit
is due:  The A was a Fandrich design and execution, fairly light rib scale,
featuring large cutoff, vertical hitches, treble fish, radial ribs, bass
float, new bridges, altered grain orientation-basically all the bells and
whistles.  The hammers that drive this board are Ronsen Bacon with no
hardeners of any type.  Plenty of power, brightness and sustain.  The M was
a Fandrich rib scale modified to my request a bit heavier to say a medium
weighting, panel and rib assembly by Terry Farrell which I installed.
Original rib positions, smallish cut-off to just reduce the long ribs to
about 850 mm, no treble fish.  I installed a transition bridge and built a
new bass bridge lengthening the backscale considerably, grain orientation
was changed to 60 degrees.  Ronsen Bacon hammers again with no hardeners
also drive this board.  For those interested, several pictures of both
pianos in progress are on my website, the M is pictured completed with
description on the "Pianos For Sale" page.   These two pianos represent
approaches with different levels of treatment but all featuring RC&S boards.

 

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 Erwinspiano at aol.com
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 7:47 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: The Soundboard bit.. RC&S

 

  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/d0613dd3/attachment-0001.html