SORRY! ( Was meant to be private. )

[Ric Brekne]

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.