Not to start something but it seems to me there are two issues. One is how to build a board where there is a fairly good chance that what you predict will happen in terms of crown, stiffness, etc., in fact, happens. Here I think the RC&S boards have a clear advantage. The other separate issue is what it is that you are aiming for. Subsumed under the heading of RC&S boards are all kinds of possibilities in terms of number and array of the ribs, amount of crown in the ribs, height, spacing, panel grain angle, cutoffs, fish, scale design, etc., etc.,. Each combination will produce its own sound. As I see it, the beauty of the RC&S system is that it allows you to tweak these other specs and not be as concerned with the crowing process itself and whether or not it produces fundamental structural integrity within a much narrower range. Only when you have a system of crowning the board that is reliable can you remove reliability as a variable a realistic chance of exploring all the other options. David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Ric Brekne Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:44 AM To: pianotech Subject: SORRY! ( Was meant to be private. ) 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. _______________________________________________ Pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC