<HTML>In a message dated 11/25/2002 1:11:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, RNossaman@cox.net writes: .<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> >      Factory workers would get it if it was coming down the line.Well > ,Recently I heard John Patton had said that When he worked at Mason > Hamlin that the pianos that recieved there bellys and were immediately > strung without sitting around for a while always sounded better to him. > Now as to why that may or may not be is not the my point but he did have > an opinion. To say someone as sensitive as a voicer wouldn't notice a > difference if something indeed had changed in the belly department is for > me  not logical. This point amounts to a spittin contest Ron You're still not getting it. Familiarity with only one manufacturer's soundboards doesn't qualify anyone for choosing between the method they work with every day at that manufacturing facility, and another quite possibly superior method that isn't practiced at the facility in which they work. Compression crowned soundboard assemblers and installers would never get the chance to compare their results (especially long term results) with those obtained with rib crowned boards. That is the old/new I'm talking about. Now I'm not getting it. What are you talking about?</BLOCKQUOTE>         John worked for M& H and now Stwy.  I'm sorry, I thought you knew that New Mason& Hamlins are rib crowned boards with tighter radii up into the treble. Does that help? The rest of your point I understand. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> >       If I've got a panel that's overly thick for a given size a piano. > i. e. a .375 or more sikta panel in an M or L ,I consider that to thick > all over as well for a smaller piano. A .340 ish treble thickness would > do fine. I've heard thinner that were good as well. What specs. are you > shooting for? I haven't had a chance to put one of my boards in anything over 7', but I'm using 8mm (0.314") in everything under 7'. I'm not altogether convinced a primarily rib crowned board needs a thick panel. I am pretty well convinced that a compression crowned board, or primarily compression crowned board does, from about the middle of the scale on up. Ron N </BLOCKQUOTE>               Ron          Sounds like a reasonable asumption.        I've installed only two panels that thin and did NO thinning .That's a thin panel!!!  One in an M ,excellent sustain. .290-.300 panel. The other escapes me right now.     I rebuilt a Stwy B from the CD dept from the 1970s'. Awesome sounding original board and at every place I could measure It was only .310 which mens it was also likely thinner at the perimeter and it was what looked like to me that thin at the belly rail. No I didn't drill small holes at other locations to check but These are the kinds of observations I think to be instructive to me personally. Many things work. We all agree that rib crowning is a superior method for longeveity but I've heard some amazing sounding compression crowned boards that are not inferior tonally to my rib crowned boards. Makes me scratch my head.         Dale Erwin </HTML>