<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=rol=
e_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV> <FONT size=3>Dave & all</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> I was going to stay out of it but...I've been ski=
mming
& following this thread. Been busy. First David I think you're asking al=
l
the right questions About panel stiffness etc. Much of this is tonal differe=
nce
is unquantifiable but apparently there are observable subjective tonal
differences between compressed & more compressed panel assemblies. You h=
ave
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 bes=
t
C.C. board or R.C. boards.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> If that's true then understand why your asking the=
questions. There's something missing that you like.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> Just a couple points. there has been some r=
ecent
discussion as to the absorptive nature of spruce panels. Though it's the ove=
rall
stiffness of the entire C.C. board system. Although sound travels fastest al=
ong
the grain .i.e. approximate. 5000 ft per second it still travels plent=
y
fast cross grains well.(3000 ish) not sure.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> I suspect (can't prove it.) but compre=
ssing
the wood fibers at least some cross grain also makes the panel mor=
e
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 som=
e
compression is benificial to the sound of a system. The other is that all th=
e
best sounding C.C. board I heard had lots of compression & hence cracks.=
Even after compression set & some loss od crown they still sounded bette=
r
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 cr=
acks
but hey not much sound either. No it's not the whole equation but some of th=
is
makes intuitive & kinesthetic sense to me.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> The other reason I like very tight grain spruce i=
s that
I get the most lively sound with it & it isn't because I'm compressing i=
t to
death but that its denser material & has excellent impedance qualities i=
n
& of itself. JMHO. But I've done it enough times now to have a strong
opinion about it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> It's true as Ron O said , I may change my mind &a=
mp;
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 clie=
nts
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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> I think you hit the nail on the head. How stiff i=
s
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 answer=
s
we've come up with even though they may vary some or a lot. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> We can't make sound boards last forever but we ca=
n make
them sing way beyond our lifetimes & any technique moving away from a pu=
rely
C.C. board will give a longer life with more predictability. At the end of t=
he
day we have to decide what were willing to live with and go with it. We shou=
ld
be able to to stick our heads in the piano & smile or go back to th=
e
drawing board. I prefer to smile.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> Good discussion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> Dale</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> Ps Dave Porritt, good thoughts</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><=
FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=
=2>I didn't
want this discussion to dry up too quickly as I still have a<BR>few--at
least--unanswered questions.<BR><BR>So let's amplify this point a bit for =
my
own clarification (forgive me,<BR>I'm a bit slow sometimes). It stan=
ds
to reason that the uncompressed<BR>panel is less stiff than the compressed=
panel, I think we agree on that.<BR>The overall stiffness of the entire
assembly (CC vs RC&S), however, is<BR>relatively the same because the =
ribs
in the RC&S board are stiffer than<BR>in the CC board and the way the
panel and ribs combine produce an<BR>overall stiffness measured in terms o=
f
the whole assembly. But if the<BR>panel in the RC&S board is
somewhat less stiff than the compressed panel<BR>in the CC board how would=
you
not expect that to have some effect on the<BR>tone? While the assemb=
lies
may both move up and down at the same rate,<BR>might the overall stiffness=
of
the panel, as opposed to the overall<BR>assembly, have an effect, say, on
which partials are damped and which<BR>are not and the balance of those?&n=
bsp;
So if the slightly less stiff panel<BR>has a greater damping effect, then =
the
perception would be a somewhat<BR>less lively or expressive, for lack of
better words, tone. I guess that<BR>was a question.<BR><BR>David
Love<BR>davidlovepianos@comcast.net <BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>