I really appreciate this truly helpful post, Dale.
Thanks!
G
--- Erwinspiano@aol.com wrote:
>
> Wow
> I went to convention & this thread is still
> active after a week.
> Always a good sign IMO. Gordon I've been
> following some of this & I think I
> understand where your'e coming from.
> Do I hear someone saying "oh crap here he goes
> again"...... Oh well
> Gordon, to reiterate what some have said.......
> many forms of boards
> work, but repeatable, duplicate results is the name
> of the game, as far as is
> possible in the realm of the materials we work
> with. We weren't around to see a
> numbers of units come off a production line & judge
> these under our tonal
> microscopes. How unfortunate. Never the less, I,
> as well as others are amazed
> by the intersting sdbd designs seen in the field
> but I probably wouldn't
> build one that way today well ....unless you want
> to be my patron.
> I've built dozens of boards in different
> iterations & thru that have
> discovered a sound I love which seems to be
> repeatable. No, I'll admit, early on
> not all my boards have met my expectations but as I
> have applied ideas
> gleaned from others, taken risks etc. the results
> have improved repeatably &
> dramtically.
> This type of empirical experience has NO
> substitute & the only way I
> or anyone can prove results is to put yourself in
> front of instruments that
> come from here & elsewhere, put your fingers & ears
> on it & do your own test
> & then decide for yourself if modern RC designs
> provide a musically
> excellent outcome.
> Many folks this past weekend in Los Angeles had
> that opportunity to do
> just that. June 21st You can do the same in
> Rochester. This has rarely
> happened & I've been waiting along time for it to
> happen again. Sign up....go
>
> I'll speak for all others guys taking restored
> instruments to
> Rochester.......
> It's a lot of work to get a piano
> prepped,shined & primed for such an
> event & if all one has to do is get there I think
> it will be a very
> fascinating convention for those in attendance
>
> My humble designs, which I call VRS "Variable
> Radius Soundboard" Has
> produced very consistent results. It's not even my
> idea ..so what, it works.
>
> Be that as it may I rebuilt a Ivers & Pond 6ft
> grand that was from the
> 20's. It had big wide flatish ribs & a .400 thick
> panel. Wow ..
> Strung up it showed no signs of residual crown
> as tested with a string
> across the boards bottom. Un strung the crown
> jumped up at least 10 mm. The
> sustain was incredible in this piano. Analyzing the
> string scale showed a
> scale very near the breaking strength in the
> middle portions of plain wire but
> wow did it sound good. The tighter a wire the
> better it seems to sound. Many
> things , as usual ,contribute to the sound being
> achieved & this was no
> exception.
> However my Sister had /has a large ornate rebuilt
> Ivers & Pond upright
> turn o century style also with the wide flat ribs
> design. The bass is
> astounding the mid tenor really good but from
> approx. note 55 on up it suffers big
> time from low impedance creating a weak treble
> So..... she bought a AA
> Mason
> That said ,Would I build this Ivers grand design?
> No.... did it work. Yes
> ,but how bout the countless others that came out
> with it & the ones you
> mentioned we'll never know.
> Postulate away
> Dale Erwin
>
> Dear Mr. Nossaman,
> I am simply trying to ascertain why these 4
> boards, which should be "crap" by the general
> "consensus" on this list are, instead, the best
> preserved ( tonally ) of any I've heard on pianos
> this
> old. ( And I've heard hundreds. )
> My 3 previous inquiries reaped deafening silence.
> It was only after I cited a revered authority that
> someone ( you ) deemed it necessary to reveal that,
> in
> fact, wide, shallow ribs CAN have rib-crowning.
> Until
> then this feature was unanimously declared here as
> indicative of "Strictly CC" boards.
> ( Thank you very much. )
> NOW, I am postulating that grain orientation was
> an integral, intentional feature of this design. I
> am
> incredulous regarding your assertion that a
> quarter-sawn piece of wood will have the same
> characteristics of elasticity and resistance to
> compression set, whether the rings run parallel to
> the
> board ( "Pancaked" ) or perpendicular ( "Vertical"
> ).
> If the rings are parallel, their naturally
> compact cellular structure will be largely in a
> state
> of tension due to soundboard crown, which I see as
> conducive to elasticity in the rib, and resistance
> to
> "compression set". ( Downbearing and vibration will
> get them closer to their pre-crowned state of
> density,
> but not beyond it. )
> If, on the other hand, the rings are vertical,
> particularly if rib-crowning is cut into them, many
> more cells will be in compression, which may lead
> to
> excessive stiffness and and earlier breakdown of
> the
> system. ( Caused by compression set within the rib
> itself ).
> What I am getting at is this: There is no question
> in my mind that whoever built these boards knew
> what
> they were doing. All are from top manufacturers,
> and
> all have stood up over time, in a horrid climate,
> producing superlative tone. I am merely suggesting
> that they intentionally aimed for "the best of all
> possible worlds": wide, flat ribs of quartersawn
> spruce with the annular rings parallel to the board
> surface, for elasticity and longevity.... with some
> rib-crowning, as well.
> There is nothing wrong with postulating here.
> Sure, I'll take a good, close look at these things
> when I have the time. But part of the List's utility
> is that it provides an opportunity for those who
> have
> already done the looking to speak up, and there,
> unfortunately, are certain persons here who have
> established a hegemony of opinion which intimidates,
> and thereby precludes others from venturing forth,
> for
> fear of having their "Heads bit off", as you did to
> me
> in your last.
> All mysteries that have faced mankind,
> individually and collectively, have first been
> assigned theoretical answers which empirical
> investigations confirm or debunk.
> I have presented an anomaly to the "List"
> "consensus": Four, shallow, wide ribbed pianos
> which
> all sound like thunder after 100 years in a truly
> lousy climate. I am merely seeking an explanation,
> and
> appreciate what positive information you have
> presented. I must confess, though, that I perceive
> some irritation based more on the fact that I have
> thrown a "monkey wrench" into the "accepted
> theory",
> rather than that I have merely not "learned enough"
> from what has been discussed before.
>
> Peace,
> Gordon
>
>
> .--- Ron Nossaman <rnossaman@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > > I'd love to, if I ever get the time.
> >
> > If you have an hour to dedicate to your
> education,
> > you've got
> > the time. If not, you'll never know anyway.
> >
> >
> > >I'm guessin' that
> > > the intent of this rib design is to maximize
> > support,
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC