Grin... Hi Thumpy.. I see you put your foot ... er.. tail in it. As one of our more famous, if not equally popular, presidents of the past used to say... "Let me say this about that !" Before you accept or reject the superiority of RC&S boards over any other it might be a good idea to define that superiority a bit more closely. Its all to easy to mix quantifiable, measureable things with what can only fall into the domain of pure taste. I have to agree on the point that some of the older quality instruments one comes across still yeild a wonderful warm and full bodied tone. Not the same kind of full bodied a new high quality built instrument displays... but wonderfull in its own right. As far as I know there is simply no real data available of any sort to confirm or reject that this has anything at all to do with how the boards were assembled. My own thinking goes along the lines of a combination of reasonably well housed (climate wise) over many years, reasonably well kept and a healthy portion of luck... on top of being pretty well built to begin with. I think its safe to say that RC&S boards are more predictable in terms of living up to their expectations... and probably even lend them selves well to design changes for customizing the sound picture that results as Nossaman alluded to the other day. They seem to have much going for them in terms of structual integrity over time, and they seem to pretty much eliminate the so called killer octave syndrom. No doubt we can list up several superiority items. On the other hand... there are other items that line up more along the lines of "differences" in the neutral sense of the word rather then anything else. I maintain that compression boards are bound to have sound characteristics of their own. Whether any given individual prefers the sound of one type of board over another is the same thing to me as whether they prefer a Bechstein over a Waldorf. :) There was an interesting point going around Europe just before Fenner died. Fenner had influenced so many manufactures to follow his idea of what science dictated a piano must have (and not have) that many manufacturers (the discussion maintained) had rather lost their own individuality and began sounding more and more alike. Ok... they may have been <<better made>> in some real sense of the word. But.... the industry became curiously enough poorer for the doing. I dunno... I get into trouble around here for waving this flag. I try to be dispassionate about it all... but yet now that I've dipped my hands and feet seriously into soundboard projects... I find myself enthusastically digging through all the possible alternatives I can find. Its easier for me to see why folks whove worked at it for many years and have many many rebuilds under their belts and have found what they believe wholeheartedly to be some of the holy grails of answers in this work swear so ardently by what they've learned. Still... I have this thing that tells me... to each their own.... and that sticks deep. Cheers RicB Thumpy dares to slip out on the list : P.S. I DO accept the general superiority of rib-crowned boards, but NO ONE has yet explained to me why these four magnificent uprights I have ( 2 Knabes, 1 Ivers and Pond, 1 Packard ) with wide, fat ribs, all allegedly "compression crowned" and, by the general consensus here therefore "inferior", are THE BEST OLD PIANOS I HAVE EVER HEARD, BEAUTIFULLY PRESERVED, WARM, RICH, LOUD, FULL AND RESONANT! Were it just one, I could consider it an anomaly. But since ANY of these four CLOBBERS the hundreds of other pianos I have heard, tonally, I am not yet satisfied with the condemnation their construction style has reaped here. I'm no expert, but we're missing something, I'm sure.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC