<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: Steingræber and CC boards</title></head><body> <blockquote type="cite" cite>At 12:13 AM +0200 20/10/03, Richard Brekne wrote:</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>. . . I also asked [Mr Steingræber] about the criticisms of CC panels, and Rib crowning as</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>an alternative. His response can be summed up by saying that CC panels<br> are quite dependable and have outstanding longevity characteristics as<br> long as they are contrived with the proper care and knowhow. And<br> concerning the Rib crowned panel, his position was that these were<br> acoustically inferiour.... tho I didnt get time to really nail him down</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>on a more specific reasoning for that opinion.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>This leads to a further question. Has Mr Steingræber actually built an RC board to establish the view that he holds, or is it that since he doesn't use rib crowning, that it is better for his production credibility to discount the technique out of hand?</div> <div><br></div> <div>I find it highly unlikely that one construction technique would have a propensity to produce a superior tone over the other. The real advantages that I see with RC&S construction are repeatability and longevity. The spring rate of a panel must surely influence its response. I suspect that the spring rate of either type would be a more critical factor that the construction method used<font color="#0000FF"> (in the short term at least)</font>. I recall Ron Nossaman mentioning this some time back, but no-one seemed to take it up at the time.</div> <div><br></div> <div>I believe it would be possible to build either a CC, an RC or an RC&S panel with whatever spring rate the maker desired<font color="#0000FF"> (the 10 mm thick panels we see in the KG series compression crowned Kawais, must surely have been used to achieve a higher spring rate - with hopefully longer sustain - than those CC instruments with thinner panels. We have a KG5 coming in for a rebuild next week - the earlier type with the Oak belly rail and back beams - the bridges will have to go since they're not quarter cut, but the panel remains an unknown until it is investigated further)</font>. Furthermore, since the CC and RC approach are entirely different in their method of supporting crown, I failed to see the utility of the discussion which ensued a few a weeks ago, when there was much speculation about the relative stiffness of a pair of identically dimensioned CC and RC&S boards.</div> <div><br></div> <div>We have just completed the construction of a pure RC&S laminated panel sound board<font color="#0000FF"> (while our previous instrument - no. 3 - had a board which was very close to pure RC, this new sound board features a completely new rib design - patent pending)</font>. The strings should be going on by the second week in November. I will report to the list with my first impressions when I get it together. We have been building piano no. 5 alongside no. 4. But I have held off on the construction of the sound board for no. 5 until I hear no. 4 'in song' - just in case I decide to change the spring rate.</div> <div><br></div> <div>BTW Dale, your posts have been interesting. And David L., I use a similar technique as the one you described for replacing a bridge.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Ron O.</div> <x-sigsep><pre>-- </pre></x-sigsep> <div><font face="Times New Roman" size="+1" color="#0000FF"><b>OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY</b></font></div> <div><font color="#000000"><i>   </i></font><font color="#0000FF"><i>Grand Piano Manufacturers</i></font><font color="#000000"><br> _______________________</font></div> <div><font size="-2" color="#000000"><br> </font><font color="#000000">Web http://overspianos.com.au</font></div> <div><font color="#000000">mailto:info@overspianos.com.au<br> _______________________</font></div> </body> </html>