<HTML>Dear particularly Ron N., Ron O., and Del (The RonDels= ? Papa Del Ron Ron?) I've been following the soundboard discussions with great interest. While ma= ny improvements have been suggested, and are actually being implemented by a= few, a great difficulty crops up for the less-experienced installer in maki= ng the transition from copying boards to re-engineering bellies. I would love to toss a re-designed rib layout, crowned ribs, third bridge, m= ulti-ply bridge cap, different bass bridge placement for longer backscale, f= loating perimeter, new string scale etc., at the model A which is now sittin= g in the shop awaiting a board. However, it would obviously be reckless and = uncontrolled to implement all these changes at once, as I would not learn th= e effect of each change, and a real risk is present of winding up with a pia= no which doesn't have the sound people associate, for better or worse, with = the marque. One really needs to START with 50 installations under his belt, to try out p= arameter changes one at a time and throw them all away. However, since this = is impossible, it would be nice to have guidance on the order of precedence.= Rather than throwing fifty experimental boards at one piano, I'm going to h= ave to make small changes in the next fifty pianos. I am willing to accept t= hat they may not be their ultimate. I for one am a big fan of the Steinway sound at its best. If they all sounde= d like the best ones, and the tone lasted like the most durable, I would be = happy, and most of my customers would too. Small order, hunh? It seems to me= that the biggest problems in Steinways are 1) longevity due to crown collap= se, 2) weakness in the lower treble and sometimes upper treble and 3) resona= nce peaks in those areas, specifically at F5 and E7 (I wish the notes around= E7 were as powerful). I can live with the bottom half of the piano at this = point, except for the crossover on some (most) models. I'm handling that tem= porarily with wound strings. I have previously used crowned ribs, glued on in a bellied press, in a moder= ate EMC environment, and they sound good and should presumably last longer. = I have (for now!) four specific questions: 1) Is there some small change to try next, to improve the treble sustain and= projection, without changing the rib layout, or making a new bridge root?<B= R> 2) I thought the general deal was that stiffer=softer tone/longer sustain = and less stiff=louder, more abrupt. We recently strung a Chickering 109C, = the treble of which had both weak output AND a very short sustain in the top= section. The scale lengths and sizes looked normal. Whassup? Too much mass?= 3) A third bridge obviously goes on a different spot on the soundboard, with= different impedance, and loudness, characteristics from the hockey-stick ar= ea of the tenor bridge it replaces. How does one figure that difference into= the string scale the FIRST time? And would you leave the hockey stick area = or cut it away? 4) What difference do you think the grain angle to the belly rail makes? Thanks, Bob Davis </HTML>