<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple id="role_body" bottomMargin=7 leftmargin=7 topmargin=7 rightMargin=7> <div class=Section1> I appreciate Dale’s comments on the pianos.  I must give credit where credit is due:  The A was a Fandrich design and execution, fairly light rib scale, featuring large cutoff, vertical hitches, treble fish, radial ribs, bass float, new bridges, altered grain orientation—basically all the bells and whistles.  The hammers that drive this board are Ronsen Bacon with no hardeners of any type.  Plenty of power, brightness and sustain.  The M was a Fandrich rib scale modified to my request a bit heavier to say a medium weighting, panel and rib assembly by Terry Farrell which I installed.  Original rib positions, smallish cut-off to just reduce the long ribs to about 850 mm, no treble fish.  I installed a transition bridge and built a new bass bridge lengthening the backscale considerably, grain orientation was changed to 60 degrees.  Ronsen Bacon hammers again with no hardeners also drive this board.  For those interested, several pictures of both pianos in progress are on my website, the M is pictured completed with description on the “Pianos For Sale” page.   These two pianos represent approaches with different levels of treatment but all featuring RC&S boards.   <div> David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com </div> -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Erwinspiano@aol.com Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 7:47 AM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: The Soundboard bit.. RC&S   <div>   RIc wrote </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'> My simple point boils down to different strokes for different folks. Until someone can show a "quantitative analysis of soundboard performance as it relates to perceived tone" as you put it.. or even something remotely akin to that.. then no one has any business waving around their beliefs as facts. </blockquote> <div>   RIc </div> <div>    I completly agree about different strokes for different folks.  If it sounds good, enjoy it.  If it's a grand sounding CC board that will go flat in 15 years but sounds great,..... enjoy it till then. Is it the best design for longevity?.. Obviously...well not in my opinion.. No.  Does it sound glorious for a season? Yeah baby! </div> <div>       My point will be that many pianos sound really quite superior to many other pianos I see.  The  question I always ask is.... why?  The answer must be as usual.  It's many things.  But what I have learned is, that it is design.  IS it scientific? ...NO.  Is it subjective?...Sure ...SO WHAT!  It's experience as well </div> <div>   I do know the sound of my own boards & it is a repeatable phenomenon. WHy? Design </div> <div>   I don't know if it has to come down to any form of belief but you & I both heard some amazingly different sounding pianos in Rochester & it was prounounced  ALL GOOD.  Right?  I heard in fact no negatives. It was design...right down to Chris Robinsons C.C. board which sounded amazing. </div> <div>  I Look it is a fact that as technicians we have big ears that keep growing. I think the ears of the technical community & musicians who hear well are all the Scientific/ subjective indicators I personally need to confirm the methods I may use to build a board. </div> <div>   Yes I heard David Loves pianos as well.  His M is by far a remarkable sounding instrument.  It touts all the best tonal features of the original Steinway scale. It was by far one of the clearest most powerful & musical M's  I have encountered.  The treble with no weaks spots  floats on a sea of sustain.  & the bass was huge. Being that I haven't heard other Ms do this in 35 years  I can only draw one conclusion.  It's the design. </div> <div>   His A also similarly had a treble very much like the Overs quality of sound also floating on a sea of sustain.  Rarely have I heard sustain this strong in the trebles in C.C. boards & but certainly not the clarity and focus this one had.  Again it has to be design. </div> <div>   My friend,...I don't get it...... why is it that this seems so difficult for you to accept or at least acknowledge? </div> <div>   I have said many times I will build a board for someone any way they want it with the proper caveats about the plusses & minus points of the design. </div> <div>   Also one thing to consider when you hear manufacturers speak is, that they are also looking for techniques that are less time consuming. I assure you the type of rib design,fish,transition bridge,sweeping cut-offs,beams, fanned rib scales etc.  all take waaayy more time and money to accomplish and from a corporate point of view are detractors from the bottom line. Honestly, if I were a corporation I probably wouldn't care if the design of my soundboard's went much beyond 40 years as long as it sounded great for most of that time.  It's called planned obsolescence </div> <div>   You have added well to the discussion & I agree with you.   It's been a good one. </div> <div>   Merry Christmas </div> <div>   Dale Erwin </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'>   </blockquote> <div>   </div> </div> </body> </html>