<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" = xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; = charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10"> <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 10"> <link rel=File-List href="cid:filelist.xml@01C514BA.3CF21DA0"> <o:SmartTagType = namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>  <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple = style='tab-interval:.5in' id="role_body" bottomMargin=7 leftmargin=7 topmargin=7 rightMargin=7> <div class=Section1> I wouldn’t = say that I’m unhappy with an RC&S board.  The purpose of this thread = (forget the meanderings) was to identify tonal differences if any.   I’ve rarely heard an = upper end (capo sections) in terms of clarity, sustain and sparkle achieved on = a CC board that I have heard on an RC&S board and maybe never on a NY = Steinway.  But whether that’s due to = the crowning method or the modifications such as cut-offs, treble fish, or the style = of ribbing (probably both) I can’t say.  I don’t see any real difference in the bass that = can’t be explained by scaling choices.  = In the tenor section, again, it’s hard to separate it out.  I’m working with cut-off = bars whereas most CC’s that I know are not.  That does make a difference in = terms of clarity and focus of tone.  = Lack of distortion when pushed and uniformity through the scale may be a = difference between the two systems.  = But not a negative and I don’t think that uniformity through the scale = limits the expressive quality of the piano.  = From my last posting I have found that the most recent board did not sound = good with a Steinway lacquered hammer.  = This was a surprise to me as I’ve usually been able to get a good sound = with them (assuming a good piano).  It took some work to find the right hammer.  As I posted, it needed something different and when I found the = right combination (and the board seemed picky about which hammer went on it), = the tone was very satisfying.  = That’s not to say it’s not different.   The fact that I = couldn’t get the sound I wanted with a NY Steinway hammer suggests that they are different.  Why that should = be the case, I don’t know.  = One thing it does demonstrate clearly to me is that the mating of hammer to = assembly is critical.  We (I) tend to = fall into habits about the hammers we like or the ones that have produced the tone = that we wanted in the past.  We = then make assumptions that the same hammer will do the same thing on another = board.  Often, that is not the case and = running through the repertoire of hammer styles to find the best fit is clearly = much more important than I thought.  = <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The jury is still out on = differences.  I don’t see any reason = not to build a RC&S board and there are many reasons to build one.  But I am still learning to work = with them to pull out what I want and, to be honest, = they are also changing my view of the tonal possibilities on a piano.  As always, there is reluctance, = at first, to accept a changing view and I am no different that way.  As I go through this process of reassessment, though, I have lots of questions that are beyond my = knowledge bass.  The builders of = these pianos have been, I think, very good about sharing what they know and I = appreciate it.  There are still = unanswered questions, but that’s why we keep going, right?<o:p></o:p> <div> David Love <st1:PersonName>davidlovepianos@comcast.net</f= ont></st1:PersonName> = <o:p></o:p> </div> -----Original = Message----- From: = pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of <st1:PersonName>Erwinspiano@aol.com<= /font></st1:PersonName> Sent: Wednesday, February = 16, 2005 10:26 PM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: More CC vs = RC questions was RE: Killer Octave & Pitch Raise <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div>   = Dave & all<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>   I was going to stay out of it but...I've been skimming & following = this thread. Been busy. First David I think you're asking all the right = questions About panel stiffness etc. Much of this is tonal difference is = unquantifiable but apparently there are observable subjective tonal differences between compressed & more compressed panel assemblies. You have some = experience with both ,So I ask you, it sounds like your not quite happy with the = sound of the competely RC&S board as compared to a the best  C.C. board or R.C.  boards.<o:p></o:p></spa= n> </div> <div>  If that's true then understand why your asking the questions. There's = something missing that you like.<o:p></o:p></spa= n> </div> <div>    Just a couple points. there has been some recent discussion as to the absorptive nature of spruce panels. Though it's the overall stiffness of = the entire C.C. board system. Although sound travels fastest along the = grain  .i.e. approximate. 5000 ft per second it still travels plenty fast cross = grains well.(3000 ish) not sure.<o:p></o:p></spa= n> </div> <div>    I suspect (can't prove it.) but compressing the wood = fibers at least some cross grain also makes the panel more reactive. Any time something is put under tension compression it gets more reactive to = movement .ie.drum heads, strings of all kinds, beams under load & people = under stress(grin). This one argument is why I believe that some compression = is benificial to the sound of a system. The other is that all the best = sounding C.C. board I heard had lots of compression & hence cracks. Even = after compression set & some loss od crown they still sounded better than = the one that escaped the factory without being suffiecently dry for the C.C. = system to belly up. These had little crown or vitality & also no cracks but = hey not much sound either. No it's not the whole equation but some of this makes intuitive & kinesthetic sense to me.<o:p></o:p></spa= n> </div> <div>   The other reason I like very tight grain spruce is that I get the most = lively sound with it & it isn't because I'm compressing it to death but = that its denser material & has excellent impedance qualities in & of = itself. JMHO. But I've done it enough times now to have a strong opinion about = it.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>   It's true as Ron O said , I may change my mind & you all have = changed my mind plenty but I also have to go with what works in my evolutionary = journey in the sound board biz. IN the long run only one broad & wide tonal results are going to make my ears  & the clients happy = & that's a piano that sings like a soprano with the biggest lungs you ever = heard a color range any kindergartner could make a Picasso = with.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>   I think you hit the nail on the head. How stiff is stiff enough. That's = is the question Nick Gravagne & I ask each other periodically & one = were all asking right now. Some of us like the answers we've come up with even = though they may vary some or a lot. <o:p></o:p></spa= n> </div> <div>   We can't make sound boards last forever but we can make them sing way = beyond our lifetimes & any technique moving away from a purely C.C. board = will give a longer life with more predictability. At the end of the day we = have to decide what were willing to live with and go with it. We should be able to to stick our heads in the piano & smile or go back to the = drawing board. I prefer to smile.<o:p></o:p></spa= n> </div> <div>   Good discussion.<o:p></o:p></spa= n> </div> <div>   &nbs= p; Dale<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  Ps Dave Porritt, good thoughts<o:p></o:p></spa= n> </div> <div>    <o:p></o:p> </div> <blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid blue = 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt; margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'> I didn't want this discussion to dry up too quickly as I still have a few--at least--unanswered questions. So let's amplify this point a bit for my own clarification (forgive = me, I'm a bit slow sometimes).  It stands to reason that the = uncompressed panel is less stiff than the compressed panel, I think we agree on = that. The overall stiffness of the entire assembly (CC vs RC&S), however, = is relatively the same because the ribs in the RC&S board are stiffer = than in the CC board and the way the panel and ribs combine produce an overall stiffness measured in terms of the whole assembly.  But if = the panel in the RC&S board is somewhat less stiff than the compressed = panel in the CC board how would you not expect that to have some effect on = the tone?  While the assemblies may both move up and down at the same = rate, might the overall stiffness of the panel, as opposed to the overall assembly, have an effect, say, on which partials are damped and = which are not and the balance of those?  So if the slightly less stiff = panel has a greater damping effect, then the perception would be a = somewhat less lively or expressive, for lack of better words, tone.  I guess = that was a question. David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net <o:p></o:p> </blockquote> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p= > </div> </div> </body> </html>